Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I agree in that violence is worse than nudity. I find the kneejerk 'won't somebody please think of the children' reaction some people get when boobs come into play exaggerated. Hardcore pornography sure, that's very confusing to a small child and probably not good for him, but just boobs?

killykavekommando (kkk?) wrote: Love the shock value.

wowsmash wrote:o it's just art so I can paint or display whatever I want for shock value.

I believe it goes a little deeper than mere shock value. This thread proves it. It sure incites discussion (and an interesting one at that).
I also don't think that saying 'it's art' should get you a free pass to say and do everything. But I do think every person is entitled to his opinion and freedom of expression.

Jayden63 wrote:The fact that it was done with minitures just changes the canvas.

[...]

Is the real issue that the models being used are traditionally used in a "kids game"? I think this is probably the bigger issue of where the real outcry is coming from.

I've said it before and you yourself also say it later in your post. But it's not 'just changing the canvas'. The piece communicates radically different because of it. It has way more effect on the end result than just choosing cotton or linen for my painting.

Necroshea wrote:The eldar rape diorama is just as silly as the female commissar. Everyone knows doing the dirty with zenos scum is extra heretical, and those who even think about it are in line for bolt based re-education.

It's not like rape or Abu Ghraib-like occurences are exaclty in the field manual today either. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

TiB wrote:I agree in that violence is worse than nudity. I find the kneejerk 'won't somebody please think of the children' reaction some people get when boobs come into play exaggerated. Hardcore pornography sure, that's very confusing to a small child and probably not good for him, but just boobs?

It's not like rape or Abu Ghraib-like occurences are exaclty in the field manual today either. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

It is just boobs but also it comes down to the people who come into where you play and how appropriate it is......

When it comes to the rape diorama.......thats not something that is gonna be out for the younger members of this game to be seen......like a member posted that was made for Golden Demon or some other award based program............but what the adults should take away from it is.........the realities of the game we play.........we minimalize it to a set of miniatures and a sci fi scenario but forget the horrors that war creates..........very thought provoking piece

While I have been arguing for the validity of the Eldar rape scene, I think one point has escaped me, and maybe a few others.....no, I'm not doing a 180 degree spin on my view point, just simply coming at it from another direction.

People in this thread have continously stated that Wh40K is a fantasy game, emphasis on fantasy, and as such we have Green Orks, Space Elves, and everything else that has become associated with that fantasy setting.

If such things are acceptable, then I suppose there is also an argument that certain levels of violence have also become acceptable, and other forms of violence have no place in this agreed setting.

So for example, rape is no more acceptable in WH40K then a Lascannon would be acceptable in Warhammer Fantasy battle....it's all fantasy, but even within the fantasy there are still some "unspoken universal rules".

When approaching the point from this angle I completely understand peoples misgivings. They come to this fantasy to enjoy it for what it has become, and don't necessarily want a real world war history lesson.

In that sense, suggesting someone has a liking for violence if they play WH40K is like suggesting the same of someone who watches an episode of Tom & Jerry (very violent cartoon )

Perhaps the artist could have made the same piece but using historical miniatures rather then fantasy miniatures from a game people hold in high regard. In the same way that certain individuals choose to pervert Disney characters for porn, I believe this is what has been done with this WH40K diorama.

Just anothe rtake on the debate I guess.

The way I see it the piece works just because it doesn't belong in the universe.

It's the same thing as the lego concentration camp by Zbigniew Libera posted earlier in this thread; the juxtaposition between the fantasy setting with 'cartoon' warfare and real life atrocities of war.

If it were done using historicals I would raise an eyebrow in a 'what are you trying to say?' fashion.

TiB wrote:The way I see it the piece works just because it doesn't belong in the universe.

It's the same thing as the lego concentration camp by Zbigniew Libera posted earlier in this thread; the juxtaposition between the fantasy setting with 'cartoon' warfare and real life atrocities of war.

If it were done using historicals I would raise an eyebrow in a 'what are you trying to say?' fashion.

Really? Perhaps you're right. Although, when I say historial miniatures I mean taken specifically from a certain era, for example Vietnam. I think if the artist had picked a specific era and put the same effort into the piece it would look like he was trying to educate as opposed to titilate (as some have suggested).....there would be no less horror, or shock, but at least people would recognise it for what it was.....almost like War artists who pianted pictures of mass graves being filled, or the photographer who captures the photo of civilian executions. You wouldn't call these people perverse simply because they bring you images that the governments don't want you to see. In some ways this is exactly what historial miniature painting and diorama are all about, capturing a point in time and telling the story of that event.

Where this artist has used WH40K miniatures, in retrospec I believe that was the wrong way to deliver his message, and perhaps also to the wrong crowd.

Delephont wrote:

TiB wrote:The way I see it the piece works just because it doesn't belong in the universe.

It's the same thing as the lego concentration camp by Zbigniew Libera posted earlier in this thread; the juxtaposition between the fantasy setting with 'cartoon' warfare and real life atrocities of war.

If it were done using historicals I would raise an eyebrow in a 'what are you trying to say?' fashion.

Really? Perhaps you're right. Although, when I say historial miniatures I mean taken specifically from a certain era, for example Vietnam. I think if the artist had picked a specific era and put the same effort into the piece it would look like he was trying to educate as opposed to titilate (as some have suggested).....there would be no less horror, or shock, but at least people would recognise it for what it was.....almost like War artists who pianted pictures of mass graves being filled, or the photographer who captures the photo of civilian executions. You wouldn't call these people perverse simply because they bring you images that the governments don't want you to see. In some ways this is exactly what historial miniature painting and diorama are all about, capturing a point in time and telling the story of that event.

Where this artist has used WH40K miniatures, in retrospec I believe that was the wrong way to deliver his message, and perhaps also to the wrong crowd.

sometimes we need our fantasy to remind us of reality

I went and looked up both minis on CMON and I can appreciate the Eldar rape scene because it puts a bit of reality into the fantasy of the game-rape happens. It's a horrible, terrible thing, don't get me wrong, but going 38,000 years into the future, rape isn't going to disappear, and this artist wanted to convey that. I think the piece does a great job of suggesting reality inside of a fantasy realm. However, the nude commissar was pathetic. Boobs are great-pointless boobs, just to have them, are not. And that is what this model is-pointless. A commander going into battle topless and with her pants pulled down a bit so she can't even walk? There is no thought to even be conveyed in this-other than somebody wanted to show boobs on a model.

So to sum up...Eldar rape scene-cruel, but based in reality and definitely art
Nude commissar...pointless and really not art at all-just pointless sex thrown into the game for sex's sake.

I could never have a problem with boobs on a mini. Boobs are awesome. Boobs on a mini? Why not? Maybe we should separate the hobby (the GW hobby and wargaming) from the miniatures. Andrea Miniatures, for example, is a brand that except for their latest steps into the fantasy, has always focused their market on historical miniatures. For adult painters. So they have a full line of Pin-Up minis. I can't see the problem with it. They are not meant to be painted by 10 year old kids.

I remember that rape diorama from the first time it's author posted it here on Dakka. At the first moment I was shocked, because it appeals a disgusting scene. Then I read his point. And changed my mind. He had done a great job shocking us. Just... show it to the proper audiences, and that's all.

This is kinda like parents complaining about the violence in videogames. If the game has a 18+ label on it, don't buy it for your children! Porn has 18+ labels too, and I'm pretty sure they won't buy it for their children... this sould be the same.

I'm a bit upset this days, because I've realized that CMON put on sale the busty female barbarian Natalya Melkink painted on her DVD. And I didn't realize on time, now it's out of stock, so I won't be able to buy it. I was eager to buy that mini. It might be a bit strange, because while I'm a Red Sonja fan (and proud of Esteban Maroto being Spanish!) I don't use to like the artwork where they go over the top and oversize everything. This mini was oversized, yeah. But most of other female barbarians and no-Red Sonja minis ara usually poor sculpts.

Not allowing the painter to make that rape scene is like trying to forbid Spielberg to make Schindler's List, Roberto Begnini La vita è bella and Art Spiegelmann Maus. Because they are about tho Holocaust and Holocaust was awful. Sometimes we need a reminder of what we shouldn't do, or where mankind should not get.

Delephont wrote:In that sense, suggesting someone has a liking for violence if they play WH40K is like suggesting the same of someone who watches an episode of Tom & Jerry (very violent cartoon )

Another interesting point: Tom and Jerry, despite being a violent cartoon, doesn't show any blood (or the original cartoons don't anyway). Even when Tom gets sliced into ribbons, his insides are still blue like his fur.

...it seemed like a good point to make but I guess it's just further proof that nothing we do really makes any fething sense.

LakotaWolf wrote:sometimes we need our fantasy to remind us of reality

timetowaste85 wrote:it puts a bit of reality into the fantasy of the game

But why? Why does the fantasy game need to have reality injected into it? What's the issue here, that by ignoring the issue of fake rape in the fake world that we're offending all the fake victims of that fake rape that inhabit the fake world? Or is it the opposite, that ignoring rape in the fantasy world somehow equates to ignoring rape in the real one?

It doesn't make any sense. You know when people play 40k and say they want to "forget" about that stuff for a while, they aren't literally wiping their minds of all memory of it, right? When I'm done playing 40k I still know that rape exists.

Except he was not playing 40k, that was not what the rape diorama was made for. It was made as an entry to an arts competition, not a way to introduce rape into your Friday night game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To clarify: I think that when it comes to things like the diorama people need to learn to separate the act of playing the game of 40K from the setting and fluff of 40K.

40K fluff is the inspiration for both. Playing the game is one way to express the fluff, the diorama is another. They draw from the same source and inspiration, but they are not really related to each other.

For the diorama I won't comment on it's artistic value without having actually asked the artist to explain the piece first.

This is for the simple reason that if the artist had carefully thought out exactly what they wanted to portray and the message they were trying to put across then I would consider it an interesting piece of art.

If they'd just decided to make a shocking model for the sake of shocking people and to show off their skills then I would consider it a tasteless piece of exploitation.

Also, a lot of people in this thread have seemed to say that art is above criticism in any form. I would disagree and say that all art is ideal for criticism. If you cannot defend the piece of art from the criticism of others then it is not worth defending.

Delephont wrote:While I have been arguing for the validity of the Eldar rape scene, I think one point has escaped me, and maybe a few others.....no, I'm not doing a 180 degree spin on my view point, just simply coming at it from another direction.

People in this thread have continously stated that Wh40K is a fantasy game, emphasis on fantasy, and as such we have Green Orks, Space Elves, and everything else that has become associated with that fantasy setting.

If such things are acceptable, then I suppose there is also an argument that certain levels of violence have also become acceptable, and other forms of violence have no place in this agreed setting.

So for example, rape is no more acceptable in WH40K then a Lascannon would be acceptable in Warhammer Fantasy battle....it's all fantasy, but even within the fantasy there are still some "unspoken universal rules".

I'm not buying this argument.

Fantasy is all about willing suspension of disbelief. It's not about realism, it's about believability. There is no way to get anyone seriously interested in the background of Warhammer Fantasy to willingly susped their disbelief of a lascannon in an army where everyone else uses swords.

Now the problem is that how we define suspension of disbelief and believability is going to vary from person to person. Personally, I think the rape scene is more believable than many other dioramas I've seen (the Eldar woman's odd lack of underwear and weightless breastplate aside). But then I come at 40K from a different place than maybe some other players do- I come at it from a perspective that war is not a glorious thing, it's a destructive waste of resources where the worst is brought out in its participants. Likewise, I reject 40K's sterile depiction of warfare, where the terrain of each battle almost never shows evidence that people used to live in that area. I reject the cartoony super-villainy, I reject the pompous self-righteousness of the so-called "good guys", and I reject nearly everything that has anything to do with a space marine.

Now someone who comes at 40K with a different set of opinions is not going to suspend their disbelief in the same way. As some people have said on this thread, being reminded of things like rape is a jarring distraction from their approach to the 40K fantasy.

So how to reconcile it? Well, I don't care much for that latter approach to 40K, obviously. But I don't need to insult the person who approaches that way. Likewise, I don't need to play a rape diorama on the tabletop of a game. But if someone spends their own money and their own time to make their own diorama, show some respect. You might disagree with their choice and you are welcome to voice that disagreement (though in my experience critiquing an artist's intent is nearly always useless. It's far more effective to give criticism of their ability to achieve their intent) but there is absolutely no need to insult the artist's motivation or personal life.

JOHIRA wrote:

Delephont wrote:While I have been arguing for the validity of the Eldar rape scene, I think one point has escaped me, and maybe a few others.....no, I'm not doing a 180 degree spin on my view point, just simply coming at it from another direction.

People in this thread have continously stated that Wh40K is a fantasy game, emphasis on fantasy, and as such we have Green Orks, Space Elves, and everything else that has become associated with that fantasy setting.

If such things are acceptable, then I suppose there is also an argument that certain levels of violence have also become acceptable, and other forms of violence have no place in this agreed setting.

So for example, rape is no more acceptable in WH40K then a Lascannon would be acceptable in Warhammer Fantasy battle....it's all fantasy, but even within the fantasy there are still some "unspoken universal rules".

I'm not buying this argument.

Fantasy is all about willing suspension of disbelief. It's not about realism, it's about believability. There is no way to get anyone seriously interested in the background of Warhammer Fantasy to willingly susped their disbelief of a lascannon in an army where everyone else uses swords.

Now the problem is that how we define suspension of disbelief and believability is going to vary from person to person. Personally, I think the rape scene is more believable than many other dioramas I've seen (the Eldar woman's odd lack of underwear and weightless breastplate aside). But then I come at 40K from a different place than maybe some other players do- I come at it from a perspective that war is not a glorious thing, it's a destructive waste of resources where the worst is brought out in its participants. Likewise, I reject 40K's sterile depiction of warfare, where the terrain of each battle almost never shows evidence that people used to live in that area. I reject the cartoony super-villainy, I reject the pompous self-righteousness of the so-called "good guys", and I reject nearly everything that has anything to do with a space marine.

Now someone who comes at 40K with a different set of opinions is not going to suspend their disbelief in the same way. As some people have said on this thread, being reminded of things like rape is a jarring distraction from their approach to the 40K fantasy.

So how to reconcile it? Well, I don't care much for that latter approach to 40K, obviously. But I don't need to insult the person who approaches that way. Likewise, I don't need to play a rape diorama on the tabletop of a game. But if someone spends their own money and their own time to make their own diorama, show some respect. You might disagree with their choice and you are welcome to voice that disagreement (though in my experience critiquing an artist's intent is nearly always useless. It's far more effective to give criticism of their ability to achieve their intent) but there is absolutely no need to insult the artist's motivation or personal life.

I'd like to respond to the bold text items first, and then to the whole message. I think if you look back at my posts on this thread, I haven't once shown anything but respect for the artist, and I don' think I have ever made a statement, positive or negative in relation to the artists personal life. Please check and highlight where you feel I'm wrong. Of course I have mused on his motivations, I mean that is part and parcel of appraising the piece of work, but I don't think I've done that in a negative or spiteful way.

In regards to your whole post. Firstly, I have been a strong supporter of the piece of art. However, in the name of true honest debate, I thought it was fair to look at it from the opposing view-point. While you don't buy my counter argument, I would counter by saying I don't necessarily buy yours. There is an old saying, "if youre going to talk to a dog, you have to bark"......basically meaning, if you have a message to pass onto someone it needs to be in a language or form they understand, and by undestanding of course we also mean - relate to.

I agree that there are many ways to approach settings like WH40K, and I don't disagree with your approach, in fact, I think it's very healthy. That said, I'd be willing to bet your appraoch is that of a minority group, with the vast majority of WH40K players taking the game at face value, sterile warzones and cartoon super villany et al. To suddenly thrust something like this into a group which, on the whole, are not geared up for it, is going to have a myriad or responses, probably very few being positive ones.

We all live in a joint society, which by it's very nature puts boundaries on what is or is not acceptable. Everyone has a social responsibility to consider their fellow man, he who fails to do so must live with the consequences. Just because the artist decided to make this piece with his own time and money does not therefore give him the right to thrust it upon society and expect to not be appraised for it. Now, if he made this piece and kept it in his own home environment, for his own pleasure....different point, that's his free choice.

A Town Called Maius wrote:For the diorama I won't comment on it's artistic value without having actually asked the artist to explain the piece first.

You shouldn't have to. A good piece of art should be able to communicate by itself.
It's silly that depending on what the artist says it's either an interesting piece of art or tasteless smut.

Delephont wrote:

Kinda weird, and yet, that's exactly what you're stating above. Why play WH40K or any wargame where the background fluff offends you? Hell, if you want strategy play chess....or Abalone, why does everyone equate strategy to war? People play WH40K, collect the armies and paint them based on the armies fluff in 99% of the cases.....are you going to deny this point? People read the Black Library books because?

To state that you play the game whilst being offended by the fluff is just idiocy...I'm sorry, theres no other way to put it. No one forces you to play (and endorse) a game the glorfies violence, you make that choice out of the myriad pastimes you could choose from.

It is very much possible to play the game and collect the models without paying much attention to the fluff. In fact to some people 40K IS chess (or a statistical exercise), etc. That is evidenced daily here on Dakka...

Personally I havent read any of the codex fluff of any codex released since I bought my Ork codex back when it was released.

TBH I could care less about a lot of the fluff, because it keeps changing, getting retconned, and generally dilluted. And despite this fact I can still play and enjoy the game.

The fluff has very little impact on gameplay. It has a marginally greter impact on some people's army design and painting, etc.

Many people don't adhere to fluff in army building, game play or hobby aspects (painting, etc.).

99%? For every "fluffy" army you see, you see scores more that are min/maxed net-deck armies painted in some wacky scheme removed from the fluff. Most players pay lip service to fluff when it is convienant, but ignore it otherwise, and one only has to spend some time in the painting/modelling section or the batreps/tournament discussion/army lists sections of dakka to see that your "99%" statement is a figment of your imagination...

CT GAMER wrote:It is very much possible to play the game and collect the models without paying much attention to the fluff. In fact to some people 40K IS chess (or a statistical exercise), etc. That is evidenced daily here on Dakka...

Personally I havent read any of the codex fluff of any codex released since I bought my Ork codex back when it was released.

TBH I could care less about a lot of the fluff, because it keeps changing, getting retconned, and generally dilluted. And despite this fact I can still play and enjoy the game.

The fluff has very little impact on gameplay. It has a marginally greter impact on some people's army design and painting, etc.

Many people don't adhere to fluff in army building, game play or hobby aspects (painting, etc.).

99%? For every "fluffy" army you see, you see scores more that are min/maxed net-deck armies painted in some wacky scheme removed from the fluff. Most players pay lip service to fluff when it is convienant, but ignore it otherwise, and one only has to spend some time in the painting/modelling section or the batreps/tournament discussion/army lists sections of dakka to see that your "99%" statement is a figment of your imagination...

Of course it's possible to play the game without caring about the fluff. The 99% that I pulled out of nowhere was simply to illustrate that MOST people don't do that. Whether you adhere to the fluff or not is irrelevant, the point is that people do care about it. If you think fluff isn't that important.....try announcing the fact that you're starting a Femal Space Marine army, then we'll see who cares about fluff or not.

Delephont wrote:

Of course it's possible to play the game without caring about the fluff. The 99% that I pulled out of nowhere was simply to illustrate that MOST people don't do that. Whether you adhere to the fluff or not is irrelevant, the point is that people do care about it. If you think fluff isn't that important.....try announcing the fact that you're starting a Femal Space Marine army, then we'll see who cares about fluff or not.

If I did that at any of the FLG I go to, I get that be cool.
Online I get a bunch of people crying about fluff.
Funny how different opinion are on the internet.

i can see this argument raging for the whole year!

Skippy wrote:i can see this argument raging for the whole year!

Same here. Only one day left!

I know its different for every place, but I'm wondering where the young children are that are supposed to be effected by this. I know of no one (save my own son who is 7 but he just pushes the models around instead of actually playing the game) who plays this game that is younger than 20. If I go into any of my FLGS and look at who is either playing or painting on the tables there are no kids.

Maybe its just different in my area, but there is no nudity that could possibly be scuplted onto a mini that hasn't been seen by all of us 10 times before in a different medium.

Lt. Coldfire wrote:Same here. Only one day left!

We can do it

Jayden63 wrote:I'm wondering where the young children are that are supposed to be effected by this.

There are plenty of younguns who buy AoBR and a battleforce, dunk it in house paint and lose interest. You're right in that it's not generally (there are always exceptions) the demographic visiting cmon and gd's and the like.

Delephont wrote:I'd like to respond to the bold text items first, and then to the whole message. I think if you look back at my posts on this thread, I haven't once shown anything but respect for the artist, and I don' think I have ever made a statement, positive or negative in relation to the artists personal life. Please check and highlight where you feel I'm wrong. Of course I have mused on his motivations, I mean that is part and parcel of appraising the piece of work, but I don't think I've done that in a negative or spiteful way.

Ah, my mistake. My use of "you" was meant to refer to the general audience of this thread, not you in particular.

Sidstyler wrote:

LakotaWolf wrote:sometimes we need our fantasy to remind us of reality

timetowaste85 wrote:it puts a bit of reality into the fantasy of the game

But why? Why does the fantasy game need to have reality injected into it? What's the issue here, that by ignoring the issue of fake rape in the fake world that we're offending all the fake victims of that fake rape that inhabit the fake world? Or is it the opposite, that ignoring rape in the fantasy world somehow equates to ignoring rape in the real one?

It doesn't make any sense. You know when people play 40k and say they want to "forget" about that stuff for a while, they aren't literally wiping their minds of all memory of it, right? When I'm done playing 40k I still know that rape exists.

It sets as a reminder to us of the horrors of war.......look at the atrocities that happen during wartime.....no matter where you are from we are all taught to be supportive of our country and its troops...........but sadly we forget these people are human beings and are being put in a situation that brings the worst out of people..........they become desensitized and forget the people they are fighting are people

when I saw that diorama I instantly remebered the lessens learned from "Platoon", "Casualties Of War", and "All Quiet On The Western Front"

that diorama is a powerful piece of art

My impression of the diorama was that it felt like a scene right out of platoon or full metal jacket. A lot of people were deeply shaken/offended by those two movies as it depicted the gritty side of war. War is terrible and people need to realize that, you can't have war and expect it to be clean, moral and romantic. The only part about it that seemed off to me was the pristine color that the eldar was done with, she came out of a blown up tank and is in dirt and grim yet her armor is perfectly unblemished. Her clothes are also far more intact than what they'd realistically be. Although I think the level that the piece was done at is fine as you don't need to go into graphic detail to convey the intent of what is transpiring. It makes the viewer think and is evocative which is the objective of sucessful art.


The half naked guard officer makes little sense to me, it'd be like having a marine dressed in short hot pants and a chippendales bow tie. If that's your fantasy by all means indulge but it's just weird to me. There's no practical sense for chain mail bkini's yet it's common place in fantasy minis because for some reason it gets gamer dude's rocks off. Personally I'd rather be looking at actual boobs in a playboy spread, but for some guys the concept of a real woman is intimidating and miniatures and furries are what get them going.

LakotaWolf wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

LakotaWolf wrote:sometimes we need our fantasy to remind us of reality

timetowaste85 wrote:it puts a bit of reality into the fantasy of the game

But why? Why does the fantasy game need to have reality injected into it? What's the issue here, that by ignoring the issue of fake rape in the fake world that we're offending all the fake victims of that fake rape that inhabit the fake world? Or is it the opposite, that ignoring rape in the fantasy world somehow equates to ignoring rape in the real one?

It doesn't make any sense. You know when people play 40k and say they want to "forget" about that stuff for a while, they aren't literally wiping their minds of all memory of it, right? When I'm done playing 40k I still know that rape exists.

It sets as a reminder to us of the horrors of war.......look at the atrocities that happen during wartime.....no matter where you are from we are all taught to be supportive of our country and its troops...........but sadly we forget these people are human beings and are being put in a situation that brings the worst out of people..........they become desensitized and forget the people they are fighting are people

when I saw that diorama I instantly remebered the lessens learned from "Platoon", "Casualties Of War", and "All Quiet On The Western Front"

that diorama is a powerful piece of art

I could also argue that if that was the diorama's true purpose then it was completely unnecessary, since clearly we have plenty of other reminders in other media already if you were able to list three of them without much trouble. Granted a lot of the younger generation probably wouldn't have movies like Platoon to draw memories from, but then again the younger generation clearly wasn't who this was targeted at in the first place, so...

Considering the small niche audience that wargames have in the first place I just don't see the point. Most of you probably already know this stuff, and those that wouldn't are too young for it anyway. Film is different because it's made for a much wider audience: everyone watches movies, so it's a much more effective media to "teach" with than models. You very well could be showing people something they never would have known about otherwise, and making them think. There's also the point that this is bringing to our attention something evil that happens in a fictional world, with a fictional alien race being portrayed as the victim. Granted it's a horrible crime that happens in the real world, too, but I think a case can be made that by using toys portraying aliens and space men with laser guns, it kinda loses some of the impact it would have otherwise had, and makes it hard for me to take seriously.

I think it would have been more "powerful" if, say, the diorama was made with historical miniatures depicting the atrocities of the Vietnam war: a child with a bomb strapped to him running toward a group of soldiers, or soldiers using napalm. Or how about trying to draw attention to an issue that most people in America have tried really hard to forget about: Japanese internment camps during WW2. That happened, in America no less. We're always real quick to point out how evil the Nazis were because of what they did to the Jews, but halfway across the world in the "land of the free", people of Japanese descent were being rounded up into camps, most of which were American citizens, all because of racial prejudice and hysteria.

Yeah I know, what happened to the Jews was way worse, America wasn't slaughtering the Japanese interned in those camps, but it doesn't change the fact that it's something you wouldn't think we would do. When I first learned about it I was shocked, anyway. I'd spent my whole life being told and believing that we were the "good guys", that we were all about freedom and democracy for everyone. Who the hell could justify that? True, we issued an apology decades later and paid reparations, but this is still a huge issue and one I don't think we should ever really forget. Especially since our government could care less about "freedom" and is trying constantly to pull bs over on us and get away with it, all the while cutting funding to education and doing everything they can to keep the middle and lower classes dirt poor, trying to make us stupider and more subservient as time goes on, telling us not to question them because it's un-American and everything they're doing is purely for our own good.

...anyway...I've wasted an unholy amount of time these past two days just reading this topic alone, trying to think of good ways to respond and giving up before I can hit "Submit". I'm thankful at least that Delephont did try to see where I was coming from, because I had to admit I was a little upset at the insinuation that I was crazy and needed a shrink (after posting his own Joker-esque thoughts about the nature of man, no less), and seemingly dismissing everything I've said as stupid hypocritical bs.

Maybe you're right after all, who knows. Maybe I really am more violent than I think and I'm just lying to myself. Personally I'd rather not find out, and if I never get put into a situation where I have to kill another human being or risk being killed myself it'll be too soon.


Also, just to reiterate: don't have a problem with nudity, so long as it "makes sense". Naked commissar no make sense, so no like. Wouldn't object to playing a game with someone who was playing with a nude commissar but I'm not going to accept any of your attempts to rationalize or explain it, just tell me "I wanted one" and let's get on with it.

In terms of nude models as a whole, I approve of them if they are done tastefully and can be quite a challenge to paint.

However that whole half naked commissar was insulting, on the other hand, that rape scene diorama was more thought provoking than anything, setting a scene and actually telling a story of war that has happened all too often in real-world conflicts was quite meaningful, and wasn't done for feths and giggles to 'shew bewbs in mah minis'.

Like I said, it must be done tastefully or for a specific purpose, such as provoking thoughtful discussion on the atrocities of war as in the case of that diorama.

paulson games wrote:The half naked guard officer makes little sense to me, it'd be like having a marine dressed in short hot pants and a chippendales bow tie. If that's your fantasy by all means indulge but it's just weird to me.

Just out of curiosity. How well you like the Catachans as they are depicted?

It's hard to say really. In both sense it's foul but it is expressing some thought of artistic point of view. I guess a naked 12 year old was classed as art, so why can't plastic models be art, I guess?

As far as argument's sake, couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion people should just try to keep their models toned down on the raunchy scale.

killykavekommando wrote:As far as argument's sake, couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion people should just try to keep their models toned down on the raunchy scale.

This is the internet. And you're suggesting we agree on something?