# Enterprise E



## actias (May 19, 2003)

Anybody know if the Enterprise E will be part of RC2's Re-Pop program?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

It already is - in 1/2500. :tongue: No idea about the bigger one.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

I haven't heard anything definitive, but I would imagine the possibility of any future releases would be based on the sales of the current re-releases.


----------



## Cougar184 (Jan 8, 2002)

dont know why they would not they are redoing the kazon torpedeo...


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

No, they're not!! That's a Revell model and Revell isn't touching the Trek franchise anymore!!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I bet you will see other repops this year, because of the 40th anniversary. Come on K-7 and Galileo!


----------



## Cougar184 (Jan 8, 2002)

just messin LOL!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

That reminds me, I need to build my Kazon Torpedene of the best ST kits out there.


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

:drunk:



You're kidding, right?


Someone please tell me he's kidding.


----------



## MartinHatfield (Apr 11, 2004)

Why is everyone so down on the Kazon Torpedo?

I understand that it was a bizarre release since it had such a short appearance on Voyager. But come on, it is a cool design, and a cool kit with many kitbashing possibilties.

I myself would like to get hold of a couple more of them for my own kitbashes for a story that I am developing and building ships for. Both as real models, and some as CG.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Someone I know turned it upside down, put some different markings and window decals and he has a deep space freighter!

I'm thinking of chopping off the armoured nose and rebuild it as a shuttle.

It's not a bad _model_; it's just a crappy subject! :wave:


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

And it's sad sales tanked the Trek line for years till PL took over. I hope someone got fired over that.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Ok I was kidding. But I will build it as is.


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

revel did not do the ent-e


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

grantf said:


> revel did not do the ent-e


Nobody said they did.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

RC2 has cancelled their licence of Star Trek Models.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Are you sure?


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)




----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Blech...time to make sure I get some of the 3-ship sets...


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Yes,I got that from someone in the hobby industry.They dont want to invest unless there is a movie tie in.


----------



## cobywan (Oct 27, 2001)

Was this someone inside RC2? I wonder if this big run of repops was a last ditch squeeze of the sponge? 

Seems wierd though. They must have forked out new money for the SW stuff.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

If so,then why couldn't they reissue some different Trek kits instead of the ones they did?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Doesn't make any sense considering the 40th anniversary is coming up.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

With subject matter like the "Scorpion" I'm not surprised.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I hate those guys.


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

Okay, I'm definantly grabbing some 2500s when my state tax check comes in!


Curse RC2!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Do we have any official confirmation of this yet?


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

This was told to a friend of mine at the Toy show in N.Y.He is a buyer for a major hobby site.I'm not saying this to stir the pot,but it seems like something that they(RC2) would do.They would not invest,unless there is a TV or Movie to support the product.Star Wars on the other hand,is not going away anytime soon.There are animated shows in the works and possibly a live action TV show in the future.You can choose to belive ths or not,I dont think anyone from Paramount is going to come here and confirm or deny this.


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

This is hardly a surprise. I've been expecting them to not renew the license once their obligation had been fulfilled. Besides Paramount, I wouldn't expect RC2 to confirm or deny it either. Remember, they are not Polar Lights. Where PL often kept us abreast of developements, RC2 usually does not. They are a bigger company than Playing Mantis was and usually only announce company plans to their board not the public in general. 

So take the news for what it's worth. Frankly, I'd be the most shocked if they released anymore Star Trek product. Likewise, don't expect another major model company to snatch up the license. Without a Star Trek series or movie to help push kit sales it seems like a long shot at best.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Went to the hobby shop sunday and someone from here or Starship Modeler had been in there to get something and said that RC2 does not intend to drop the Trek license. The person indicated something about getting the info from RC2.


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

That info was related from former Polar Lights prez Tom Lowe.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

I was hoping they'd dig up the molds for the "Original" Enterprise kits from the '70's with all the inaccuracies. I STILL have to build all 14 Franz Joseph ships, especially the U.S.S. Kongo!


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

You know they make an accurate "inaccurate" bridge for the PL TOS E? It's to match the ships like the Kongo & Constitution.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I'd love to see a 40th Anniversary commemorative kit from AMT of the original 18" _Enterprise_ kit in the large box with original artwork. Though the mold tooling has changed since the 70's and I don't know if the original molds from that era still exist, or if so, they would be in any shape to repop a number of those kits.

Of course, I wouldn't want this kit to take the place of a 1/350th scale TV _Enterprise_ for the 40th Anniversary! Though, if that were to happen, I think we would have probably heard about it by now. So much for my dreams of the ultimate "grail" kit.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

I wouldn't worry about it. In the past years, like clockwork, AMT releases Star Trek kits for the anniversaries. I have stuff from the 20th, 25th and more. Even if nothing is new, kit wise, at least we'll get a sticker on the box saying "40th anniversary".

Actually, it's amazing that they didn't put that sticker on the 4 current releases. Maybe because those were from late 2005? Maybe someone forgot?

I will agree that the Pl kit is more correct to the original Enterprises, but I like working with the older 1/500th scale 18" Enterprise as I can research and make corrections to the kit. Also, the overall construction of the AMT 18"er is in many ways better than the PL kit, especially on the nacel support arm to ship construction. The larger scale allows more detail.

Not only that, but building the 18"er has nostalgia attached to it. Don't forget that until the recent release of the PL kit, and the 22" cut away, the 18"er was the only kit for almost 30 years!

Also, this kit established that there were 13 other ships BESIDES Enterprise and even gave ship listings as written out by Franz Joseph and with names that appered in the Stephen Whinfield book "The making of Star Trek" which were basically Star Trek law throughout the 1970's, 1980's and mid 1990's until Paramont changed the rules in the new Star Trek Encyclopeadia in the late 1990's.

When it comes to building the two diferent kits, I decided to build the 18"er using the FJ numbering system and the Pl kit using the new paramont system. I still have 7 18"ers to get to have all 14 that the original box recommends I should collect.

Thanks for mentioning the newer bridge to convert the PL ST kit to the Constellation.

As for the Constellation bridge being "Incorrect", who's to say for sure? I like to think that Starfleet wouldn't make every Constitution class ship EXACTLY alike anyway. The 18"er may be incorrect for the TV Enterprise, but might be bang on for the other 13 ships. Without being in ST space and personally inspecting every one, who can say for sure what is right?

In the history of sailing ships, no two ships came out of the ship yard in the EXACT same way. Some captains would request larger cabins, more guns, different sails, etc. Why change this concept in Starfleet times? 

Perhaps the Constellation bridge IS correct. Perhaps Commodore Decker wanted the bridge and B/C deck to look like that because it gave more room in the back end for an extra computer or bigger captain's lounge? Maybe he liked having coctail parties with the crew and needed the space for a more advanced 8-track and larger dance floor? I know it's speculation, BUT the AMT kit DID appear on film, so it can't be totally INCORECT, can it?

Also note that the Doomsday Machine Constellation came out in season #2 of the show and who knows if in actual Star Trek history that ship was newer than the Enterprise? Remeber that the original Enterprise was captained by April, Pike and then Kirk? Enterprise had a long history. They never made a historical reference to the Constelation so it might have come out of the shipyard 3 weeks prior to meeting the Doomsday Machine, for all we know. Therefore that different bridge shape MIGHT have been more in vouge at the time. 

For the numbers on the Constellation (NCC-1017), and Republic (NCC-1371), I like to think that these two ships might have come to have these numbers in a simular way that the refit Enterprise and all sucessors had (NCC-1701-(?)). Perhaps these two ships derrived their numbers from earilier class starships (Not Constitution vessels) and had their own significant history that also allowed them to carry on their ship's numbers into the new "Refit" models of their era. 

Just a side thought to finish off with...wouldn't it be cool to get a new 18"er tool based around the original AMT kit construction with the newer PL clear nacel pieces, Pilot, 2nd pilot, film and Constellation versions? Think about it!


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

No two modern naval ships are quite the same, either. The Iowa-class battleships are about as close as you can get, and each of the four has some differentiation.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Yo, Mad Cap I think you got the 18 and 22 inchers mixed up. The 18 inch is a scale of about 1/631 while the 22 inch is 1/500.

Another possible explanation for the NCC numbers on the Constellation and Republic is they were origanaly something other than a Costituion class and during an overhaul/upgrade they were converted to Constituion class


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

MadCap Romanian said:


> Thanks for mentioning the newer bridge to convert the PL ST kit to the Constellation.
> 
> As for the Constellation bridge being "Incorrect", who's to say for sure? I like to think that Starfleet wouldn't make every Constitution class ship EXACTLY alike anyway. The 18"er may be incorrect for the TV Enterprise, but might be bang on for the other 13 ships. Without being in ST space and personally inspecting every one, who can say for sure what is right?


You're welcome!

When I said "incorrect", it was a bit of a pun. When the kit was crafted, they got the shape of the bridge wrong for the _Enterprise_. So in that sense, it's incorrect. But then they used (& someone correct me if I'm wrong) a kit for the shots of the _Constellation_ on the show, so the bridge shape is correct... for the _Constellation_. So it's inaccuratly accurate!


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

Trek Ace-
i was thinking the same thing about a resissue if the original 1966 Enterprise box/kit for the 40th ann. !!!! contact RC2 about this great idea? Gary


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

They re-used the _Constellation_ shots for the (I think) _Excalibur_ in "The Ultimate Computer" - so it would be correct for that ship as well.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

> Yo, Mad Cap I think you got the 18 and 22 inchers mixed up. The 18 inch is a scale of about 1/631 while the 22 inch is 1/500.


That's true, I forgot the scale of the 18"er and could only think of 1/500. The old, and I mean OLD, modeling book "Famous Spaceships of Fact and Fantasy....and how to model them" from Kalmbach books in 1979-1980 list the Star Trek kit as being 1/636 scale, so even you are a little bit out.  



> Another possible explanation for the NCC numbers on the Constellation and Republic is they were origanaly something other than a Costituion class and during an overhaul/upgrade they were converted to Constituion class


Didn't I say that? 



> Perhaps these two ships derrived their numbers from earilier class starships (Not Constitution vessels) and had their own significant history that also allowed them to carry on their ship's numbers into the new "Refit" models of their era.


Another thing you said was of interest for another conversation...


> They re-used the Constellation shots for the (I think) Excalibur in "The Ultimate Computer" - so it would be correct for that ship as well.


I was looking at the "Ships of the Line 2006 calendar" and for the month of May they have an artisit interpretation of the re-creation of the Ultimate Computer battle in which they show Enterprise firing on the 4 ships. I think the artist used extreme liscence when he did this picture because the ships are shown as destroied space debris. 

In the past, I watched this episode over and over because I was going to build a version of the Lexington. (Still on the bench.) My notes on the episode are in an AMT box somewhere, so according to memory....In the actual episode, the Lexington had 2 hits on the ship, one near engineering and another in an undetermined location. 50 people lost their lives on the Lexington. At the end of the episode, the captain of the Lexington spares Kirk when he realizes that the M-5 is shut off. 

To build this model of the Lexington, I also watched "Wrath of Kahn" numerous times to study the same "Shot" that was fired in engineering on the Enterprise, one of the first shots fired by the U.S.S. Reliant. Therefore, in my opinion, there should be one large "Rip" on the secondary hull just behind the main sensor/deflector dish. The second "Undetermined" shot, which I believe to be more of a Phaser flesh wound, could be a simple black "Puff" from an airbrush placed anywhere on the model, nothing more. Obviously battle dammage that could be repaired at any local stardock.

On the calander the Lexington looks like it is ready to explode!
It has a hole through the primary hull beside the "N" and an entire missing section spanning 3/16 of the primary hull section cutting off the "09" part of the 1709 decal. In addition to this, it has an engine cut right off at the base of the support pylon on the secondary hull that is drifting off in space. 

Something similar is going on with the U.S.S. Hood. In the episode, the Hood had one shot fired on it and it manovered out of range of the battle. In the calander, the Hood is shown with the rear of one engine nacel cut off and as much dammage on the Primary hull as the Lexington. 

Another "problem" with the picture is that in the episode, Kirk convinces the M-5 to scan the Excalibur and that's when the M-5 realizes it murdered the ship and crew and it shuts down. This is crucial to the story as this is the moment the computer stops its killing spree. The Excalibur in the calander is shown as nothing but twisted steel girders floating in space. Hardly anything to scan, hardly any reason to stop fighting.

The only ship that makes any sense (but still doesn't) in the calander picture is the Potemkin which has a phaser blast on the underside of the primary hull. (In the episode, the Potemkin stayed out of range and didn't get fired on.)

The only thing I liked on this picture is that it is a far more dramatic picture than the way the battle was depicted on the TV, with the 4 ships flying in perfect formation approaching Enterprise at the same camera angle. (They superimposed a single 3/4 frontal shot of Enterprise and split it into 4 identical frames, one picture in each quadrant.) Far more realistic in the calander, but sadly, not in keeping with the original story.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Could this be the same type of shot fired on the Lexington in The Ultimate Computer?










Same dammage as on Excalibur?

Food for thought!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

A scale of 1/631 put the length at 18 inches while a scale of 1/636 puts the length at 17.86 inches.So the scale of this model is in the area of 1/63?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

:wave:


MadCap Romanian said:


> Could this be the same type of shot fired on the Lexington in The Ultimate Computer?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe not considering they used a bic lighter to apply the battle damage to the Constellation. :wave:


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

> Maybe not considering they used a bic lighter to apply the battle damage to the Constellation.


I think the Doomsday Machine was created by the peoples from the planet Bic.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Yes but what about the other guys?


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

The unfortunate paper people of planet Crayola. Burned to a crisp!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

falcondesigns said:


> This was told to a friend of mine at the Toy show in N.Y.He is a buyer for a major hobby site.I'm not saying this to stir the pot,but it seems like something that they(RC2) would do.They would not invest,unless there is a TV or Movie to support the product.Star Wars on the other hand,is not going away anytime soon.There are animated shows in the works and possibly a live action TV show in the future.You can choose to belive ths or not,I dont think anyone from Paramount is going to come here and confirm or deny this.


I choose *not*.

They are going to divulge closely held proprietary info on a multi-year contract and corporate direction to a guy who is a "major hobby site buyer"?

*Not!!!*

RC2 cut back on issueing purchasing agreements to web sites when they took over, as Captain Locknar can attest. Showing a pretty low respect for web sales they didn't tightly control themselves, or web sites that aren't extensions of brick and mortar companies that they force to make large up-front committments to them.

No disrespect meant to your friend, but "major hobby site buyer" or not, I wouldn't believe the guy for a second, for the very reason you point out in your last sentence, neither Paramount nor RC2, the powers that be, are going to spill their guts to a "major hobby site buyer" any more then to us here on hobbytalk.

I happen to know from a former PL worker that they signed a 10 year $100,000 per year contract. I think they have about five or six years still left on that contract, however long it has been since PL first got the license subtract that from 10 years if you need a more precise amount of time.

RC2 now owns and is obligated to that contract.

It's the only reason that their other company, AMT/ERTL can repop their old Star Trek stuff.

So until all of those are no longer being produced, there is positive proof that the license still exists. Even if they finished all announced runs of Trek kits, whether PL or repops all that means is that they think that's all that's momentarily profitable to make.

I've never seen any evidence that Paramount is a company that just lets multi-billion dollar licensees out of long term contracts just because the licensee suddenly decides the Trek license isn't as profitable as they would like. Especially considering how the company they first sold the license to was taken over by a tremendously larger company. A company who is using the fact that they now own the contract to repop kits that that subsidiary not too long ago bitched about being ridiculously overpriced and not worth it.

I can't think of a single reason why Paramount would entertain the idea of letting a tremendously large company who took over a small company they licensed to, a company and is using a wholely different division to repop kits, of letting such a company out of a contract that a tremendously smaller company could have afforded.

Somebody thinks Paramount, of all companies, would take financial sympathy on such a mega-corporation, and say "that's okay, keep your money?"

Has anyone else seen any such evidence of Paramount's soft-hearted philantrophy?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The only way RC2 will be able to make a profit from the license agreement they are committed to from Paramount is to produce Trek subjects.

They might never commission a new subject for the remaining years, they might just continue to repop AMT and PL Trek stuff.

But unless Paramount suddenly turns into Mother Theressa, RC2 will be turning out some sort of Trek subject or another for awhile.


----------



## abacero (Oct 24, 2005)

I agree with Chuck. Paramount has proven that th eST franchise (models, toys, etc) is profitable. And is also convenient that, until they have a new show or movie on the works, keep the concept alive, specially with the hard-cores (like all us). And what a better oportunity than the 40th. Anniversary!

And for the people can whisper to the RC2 guys, a suggestion: what about a reussue of all the Enterprise's generations (TOS, A, B, C, D and E). the still have the molds (hopefully) and can recover some of the market that eBay has on such models, now extremely expensive (An E-C can cost over $100 bucks!!!!) as a Commemorative Limited Edition (you know, a fancy box, special nameplates, things like that). That could be interesting, don't you think?

Regards,

Abacero


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

Little work, lots of profit. You'd think somebody over there would think of something!


----------

