Doesn't it irritate you sufficiently to put fingers to keyboard when...

[zenrat]

...they write in a model magazine something like "this is a good subject because they can be painted in so many different schemes".

[jcf]

No. Why would I hate an innocuous statement?

[zenrat]

It's not an innocuous statement.  It's an implicitly prescriptive one.  It's underlying suggestion is that only real world subjects can be modelled and to do otherwise is "wrong".
In reality any model kit can be finished in an infinite number of ways.
I use the phrase "don't you hate it when..." as it is one commonly in everyday use.
"Hate" is a word which along with "love" has lost it's impact.  These days it can mean anything on a sliding scale ranging from minor dislike to intense loathing.
In view of your question and in order to maintain accuracy I will therefore adjust the thread title.

[Weaver]

It doesn't particularly irritate me because I think the problem with the statement is poor phraseology, rather than an inherent predjudice. Whatever we whiffers think, the majority of modellers are primarily interested in real-world subjects, so you can hardly blame journalists for primarily addressing their tastes. If he'd written "another plus point with this choice of subject is that a wide-range of real-world colour schemes are available" then I don't see how anyone could object.

Off-topic: I heartily agree with the comment about the devaluing of "love" and "hate" by their use for trivial issues. I've become very interested in Youtube in the last few months, and you see it all the time in comments. A short, reasonably entertaining video is "the best thing ever!!!". A Youtuber posts a video after a break and "OMG it's the best day of my liiiiiiiife!!!!!!!!!". "Love", "hate", "best" and "worst" are thrown around freely about things that barely merit "like", "dislike", "good" and "poor". The culprits are mostly teenagers of course, who lack perspective and to whome every experience seems extreme because it's new.

[Dizzyfugu]

It doesn't particularly irritate me because I think the problem with the statement is poor phraseology, rather than an inherent predjudice. Whatever we whiffers think, the majority of modellers are primarily interested in real-world subjects, so you can hardly blame journalists for primarily addressing their tastes. If he'd written "another plus point with this choice of subject is that a wide-range of real-world colour schemes are available" then I don't see how anyone could object.

That's "correct", but Whifs hardly receive any respect in media. "Real things" are so convenient because there's an obvious benchmark. A simple world for simple people.

When it comes to creativity beyond that, and thinking outside the pond or "norm", things become difficult because there's hardly a scale for "good" or "bad". That's what I find so fascinating about whiffing - generally. It's the idea that IMHO counts, more than the execution (which is not excluded, though).

"Being different" has always been a big problem. 

[zenrat]

Kids are happy to build, paint and decorate their models any way they see fit.  Its the adult world that pushes them into conformity as they grow up.

Weaver - the worst of the ill-used words is "awesome" IMO.
Awesome?  Really?  You are in awe of a video of a cat appearing to play the piano?
Hmmmmmmmmm.

[sandiego89]

...they write in a model magazine something like "this is a good subject because they can be painted in so many different schemes".

Nope, I think it is helpfull to let readers know they might want to buy a model because it can be finished in many liveriers.  Folks, especially more novice modellers, might be more inclined to buy a model knowing the have all sorts of options to paint it in their favorite schemes, or serving in a particular service. This gives more options, but keeps it in a realistic theme. A more skilled modeller, or a WHIFFER, or even soemone who does not care about acuuracy knows you can paint something any way you want, or there is a special one-off scheme that did not see wide service.

Subjects with more options/schemes likely sell better.  

A novice modeller might be surprised to find out that a DR1 does not have to be painted as the Red Baron, a P-40 does not have to have a sharks mouth, and not not all Black Widows were all black!  

In terms of aircraft, some aircraft have more variations in schemes, and some do not.  Some served shorter lives and served with fewer air arms, so a correct scheme might be limited, and may be boring to the potential buyer. Nose art, squadron markings etc, may not be enough to provide a vide variety of schemes.  

It may be dangeous to do so, as there are always one off examples that can be found (and I'm sure folks can shoot me down with examples), but to emphasise my point:

Some examples of not a whole lot of schemes: B-2 bomber, B-29, F-117, GMC Deuce and 1/2 in WWII olive drab, PT boat, Iowa class battleship (dazzle perhaps), SAAB Tunnan (a few wore cammo), F-106, F-102, Enterprise starship, B-36, etc.  
 
Some examples of many schemes/liveries: P-51, F-4, F-104, F-16, rat-rod, spitfire, panzer, etc    

[Captain Canada]

I don't see anything wrong with the statement. It's true ! An a/c like a Mustang or a 104 can be finished in a myriad of schemes. And btw, I think both a/c are awesome 

[scooter]

F-106, F-102, Enterprise

For the 106s, you've got NASA, ADC, Drone, you could probably probably sneak by with an Arctic hi-viz scheme, the prospective buyers of the C/D versions.

The same with 102s, including SEAC.

As for the Starship Enterprise- that's when you break out the Jackill's "Ships of the Fleet, Vol 1" guidebook and kitbash.

[dadlamassu]

Kids are happy to build, paint and decorate their models any way they see fit.  Its the adult world that pushes them into conformity as they grow up.

Cool - Brilliant - Awesome - Absolutely - 

Seriously, Grandson Callum has NA Sabres painted as a shark, a leopard, Alphajets as a tiger and a zebra, blue & red Mustang, a Tiger tank as a .... tiger!  And a few cars in some quite gharish schemes.

He also has several Spitfires in Battle of Britain colours, a Bf109 "Yellow Nose" a Me 262 historically painted.

He paints them as he sees fit. 

[Old Wombat]

Model kits are built to represent real subjects (or, increasingly it sometimes seems, German paper projects & "almost were"'s), or subjects seen on TV, or in the movies.

I'm fine with this, otherwise the manufacturers may as well just throw assorted unassociated bits & pieces into a bag & call it a plastic model "kit" (OK, some seem to do that anyway). There are more "Real World" builders than there are of us.

I'm pretty sure there are more kitbashers (those who combine 2 or more kits to make a model of some RW subject that has not been kitted) than there are of us, too, but they can see beyond the box to something different, even if it must (in their eyes) be RW.

I don't blame kit manufacturers or magazine writers & editors for targeting the bigger market - it's good business sense!

Nor do I blame them for the stifling of children's imaginations as they grow up. We all started out as children (well, most of us) making models as best we could & painting them as we felt fit - even most of the most rabid JMN's. Psychological predisposition, parenting, education & our individual life experiences all combine to make us what we are. Some striving for greater & more intricately detailed realism, others for wilder & more extreme variation from the "norm".

I'm no psycho-analyst, so I wont push the envelope here, but I'm pretty sure many who strive for greater realism are trying to control something amid the chaos of the real world around them, while many of us aim to break with an overly structured reality by creating fantasies. Of course I could be
completely wrong - & probably am regarding many, both real-worlders & whif-worlders. Hell, I can't even figure me out!

Anyway, it's our ability to see not only beyond the box but beyond reality which, I believe, sets us apart. Even from each other!

Psycho-babble BS over.

[eatthis]

nope not 1 bit

[Weaver]

Weaver - the worst of the ill-used words is "awesome" IMO.
Awesome?  Really?  You are in awe of a video of a cat appearing to play the piano?
Hmmmmmmmmm.

OMG ikr - I literally DIE when they do that!!!!! 

[zenrat]

So it appears i'm in a minority then.
I find it very hard to build something in a standard scheme. It seems to me to be a "waste" of a kit if I build it the same as all the others.
Even the one RW aircraft i've built in the last 5 years (1/35 Huey UH-1 in Australian Vietnam markings) deviates from the norm as I felt troops off to fight would have put pornographic pin-ups inside the cabin.

[dadlamassu]

I make lots of kits and models for different reasons:
- Historical wargaming - models tend to be reasonably accurate representations and there are lots of conversions to fill the ranks
- Imagi-nation wargaming - many, by definition, are changed in some way - weapons, markings, equipment etc
- Indulgence - I like the kit, idea or theme.  It might be made "out of the box" or it may be used for something entirely different.  Or it might be kit bashed from the stash
- Spending time with Grandson - Building kits out of the box but painting them as he sees fit.
- Lego - the packets have instructions but the Lego box is just full of bits.  The Lego box is the most popular!

IMAGINATION RULES!