People's Views On Wounded/Dead Figures? (1 Viewer)

the true meaning of the empire strikes back!!!!
Mitch

I can understand how some collectors might find these types of figures distasteful however for diorama builders these type of figures are essential and realistic, afterall we are portraying war. Personally I'm all for them........especially if they are the enemies of the British Empire whatever the era!!! {eek3} {sm4}
 
I have quite a few Zulus that are in this category:wink2:

Cheers

Martyn:smile2:
 
Dead and wounded add realism to a diorama. I do draw the line, however, at what I call "grusome" depictions of casualties. Decapitated bodies, severed limbs and spilled guts may be realistic but over the top in my opinion.
I once asked Don Troiani (the most celebrated military artist alive today) why he doesn't show more "blood and guts" in his paintings. His reply was that the real horrors of war should be taught but he could not convey them in a painting.
His purpose was to create a realistic scene of action and uniform depiction to give a sense of historical accuracy. He added that there was not much of a market for vivid battlefield carnage or the "personal" activities of camp life.
 
BSP is currently doing the Normandy Landing scene for The Great Crusade, using many manufacturers products, we were hard pressed to to present a realistic depiction, due to the lack of casualty figures. Alex
 
I simply can't imagine a battle diorama without dead and wounded. They are essential, and although they exist in small numbers, I think that manufactures should increase the share of such figures in their product line. Dead and wounded are the most certain face of war, and there is no way to depict a realistic war scene without them. I think the line to draw is not if they should be produced or not, but only to the how "bloody/morbid" degree they should have.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top