# New Revell Rogue One kits



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Cellerboy over on RPF caught a screen grab from the new "Star Wars Show" from the official Star Wars site that shows boxes sitting on shelves for a new Revell Imperial Star Destroyer, the new AT-AT, and possible a U-wing. So we're definitely getting three new kits -- but, ahem, Revell.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Revell did a pretty good job with the Venator Star Destroyer kit- I wished at the time the same level of detail had been used with the Ertl/MPC classic ISD. 

I think this new ISD kit should be a good one- that is until Bandai gets around to releasing theirs.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Richard Baker said:


> Revell did a pretty good job with the Venator Star Destroyer kit-


True. I supposed it would be too much to hope for that their new SD would be in the same scale.


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

There will eventually be a black R2 unit as well I suspect.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Hunk A Junk said:


> True. I supposed it would be too much to hope for that their new SD would be in the same scale.


I doubt Revell would make it in a matching scale- that sort of thing is just not that important to them. Besides- the ISD is a much larger craft than the Venator.

I would be happy for any kit in the 18"-24" range with decent detail.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Richard Baker said:


> I doubt Revell would make it in a matching scale- that sort of thing is just not that important to them. Besides- the ISD is a much larger craft than the Venator.
> 
> I would be happy for any kit in the 18"-24" range with decent detail.


How much larger? A foot? True, Revell cares little about scale, but this sure would be an opportunity for them to atone for past sins and make a truly awesome kit.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Hunk A Junk said:


> How much larger? A foot? True, Revell cares little about scale, but this sure would be an opportunity for them to atone for past sins and make a truly awesome kit.


I fear you may be mistaken if you feel the people at Revell have any thought whatsoever they have sins to atone for, at least insofar as plastic kits are concerned. 

They'll make the kit in whatever box scale fits their marketing desires. If they need a kit that fits in a box of a specific set of dimensions in order to fulfill the pack-out requirements of an assortment, that's what going to be done, and they'll sleep well on that, feeling no sins have been committed. 

Not defending them. Just trying to keep expectations realistic. 

I assume licensing fees are the main thing keeping Round 2 from digging out the old MPC Star Wars molds. Also assuming they HAVE those molds. Man that's got to suck, having all the potential income from re-popping SW kits during the current interest boom and they just can't do it. Can't even slap them in a box with generic titles like "Outer Space Fighter Plane" for the X-Wing. Ha. Karma for bumbling up the Star Trek 50th anny maybe.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> I assume licensing fees are the main thing keeping Round 2 from digging out the old MPC Star Wars molds. Also assuming they HAVE those molds. Man that's got to suck, having all the potential income from re-popping SW kits during the current interest boom and they just can't do it. Can't even slap them in a box with generic titles like "Outer Space Fighter Plane" for the X-Wing. Ha. Karma for bumbling up the Star Trek 50th anny maybe.


Revell of USA currently holds the license for Star Wars in the USA, so I assume that's why Round 2 can't produce Star War kits, reissues or new-molds. Since Revell produces kits from all the movies and some animated shows, it seems they have the license for all things Star Wars.


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

There were a couple of closeup views of what appears to be the Rogue One Revell SD floating around--looks very primitive and well below the quality of the fairly decent Revell Republic SD. I'm not dumping on Revell--they clearly decided what their market for these kits were a long time ago and focused on simple, pre-colored kits that look enough like the subject to sell. But I don't think this SD will please anyone looking for a serious take on the subject. I'll be happy if I'm wrong but this doesn't look promising.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

JeffBond said:


> There were a couple of closeup views of what appears to be the Rogue One Revell SD floating around--looks very primitive and well below the quality of the fairly decent Revell Republic SD. I'm not dumping on Revell--they clearly decided what their market for these kits were a long time ago and focused on simple, pre-colored kits that look enough like the subject to sell. But I don't think this SD will please anyone looking for a serious take on the subject. I'll be happy if I'm wrong but this doesn't look promising.


Any links or a clue where to see these images?
As we learned from the original BSG & ISD kits, box art tells you nothing important


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

Unfortunately I just glimpsed this on facebook--I think someone did screen caps from a video or something. I'm sure they'll show up again soon though. It was a couple of closeups of the superstructure and sides I believe; didn't really show proportions but the general look did not seem promising.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

Stolen from Starship Modeler:

U-Wing

AT-ACT


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

edge10 said:


> Stolen from Starship Modeler:
> 
> U-Wing
> 
> AT-ACT


So, basically these kits are toys aimed at 6 year olds that are built for play and have electronic lights and/or sounds (notice the compartments for batteries). Revell will probably follow these kits with "SnapTite Max" versions, which will be bigger, somewhat better detailed, but pre-painted and in "box-scale". :|
Hopefully, Bandai has the license to do kits from this movie.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

spock62 said:


> So, basically these kits are toys aimed at 6 year olds that are built for play and have electronic lights and/or sounds (notice the compartments for batteries). Revell will probably follow these kits with "SnapTite Max" versions, which will be bigger, somewhat better detailed, but pre-painted and in "box-scale". :|
> Hopefully, Bandai has the license to do kits from this movie.


Yes, Bandai has the rights for Rogue One.

Deathtrooper:

STAR WARS PLASTIC MODEL - ???? ??????

X-wing repackage:

STAR WARS PLASTIC MODEL - ???? ??????


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Welp, I can see I won't be getting the Revell U-Wing or AT-ACT. Assembled toys. Ugh.

What I hate about this is that Revell assumes young modelers are morons. The very fact that someone -- an adult OR a child -- is buying a model instead of a toy means they are looking for an experience separate than just having something to put together and play with. Yeah, we all hold our assembled models in our hands and 'zoom' them around a bit for fun, or gaze at them to recreate angles we see on TV or in the theater, but if "play" is the goal, then buying a model is a really fragile way to make a toy. As a kid (and I started modeling in kindergarten) I played with my models, but I never bought them to have a toy. I wanted something that was as close as possible to the "real" thing. I had a Seaview toy (which I guess now would be worth a lot of money) that I played with, but I knew even then it looked nothing like the one on TV. And I wanted the one on TV. When the Aurora kit came out, it was closer, but I still could see where it wasn't quite right. And I was in 2nd grade at the time! Revell's entire philosophy with these "build and play" kits is to cover their lack of interest in accuracy or research by claiming, "Well, young modelers don't care about accuracy. They just want to play!" BS. BS. BS. It's a cop out. It's an excuse for lazy execution. They COULD make an accurate kit that kids could still play with, but they don't. That tells you all you need to know. They put only as much effort into these kits as the minimum the market and their licensee requires. Jeez, Disney, DO BETTER! You don't NEED to give your license to these clowns! Or hows about this: take pride in your products! If you're making models, understand WHY people would maybe want to buy a model instead of a toy!!!


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Richard Baker said:


> Any links or a clue where to see these images?
> As we learned from the original BSG & ISD kits, box art tells you nothing important


Image of the box seen here:

http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=266227

If I read the picture right, this will be a skill-level 2 model or a snap together.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Welp, I can see I won't be getting the Revell U-Wing or AT-ACT. Assembled toys. Ugh...


When Revell released their TFA kits, Build & Play (BP) & SnapTite Max (STM), I had read on one of the forums, maybe this one, several postings by a guy who said he had helped develop Revell's BP kits. He wrote that Revell of USA was involved with the development of the BP kits and Revell of Germany (ROG) did the STM kits. The reason for the BP kits was to get young kids (6 yr olds) interested in model building. The STM were for older kids and people with more modeling experience. Not sure if Revell's strategy is working, but there it is.

ROG was the one who originally acquired the European license for Star Wars, then Revell of USA acquired the license for North America and imported the kits here in new boxes. So the whole "box-scale" idea is ROG's. Apparently, they feel that Star Wars is for kids, and kids don't give a crap about scale or accuracy. Like you, I believe their wrong on both accounts.

Back when I was a very young Spock62, I became interested in building models from my father, who had built me a few balsa wood planes and then a couple of plastic model kits (when I was still in the crib!). I probably made my first kit at around 6 or 7 years of age...and it was a simple glue kit that needed paint and water slide decals applied. Granted I didn't paint it, got glue everywhere and made a mess of the decals, but I did build it. In fact, all of the kits I made were regular glue kits until I made a couple of snap kits in my mid-teens. Can't see any reason today's kids couldn't handle glue kits.

Revell got a lot of flack for their TFA kits, on forums AND their Facebook page. Hopefully, they've taken the hint and provide better Rogue One kits (beyond the BP kits) then they did before...but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Here's the latest news from Revell USA, posted on the CultTVMan site: Rogue One kits from Revell - CultTVman Fantastic Modeling

These 3 kits are "Build and Play" with sound effects, like Revell's earlier efforts with their TFA kits for 6 yr olds. The article also mentions that Revell USA will produce these kits, *not* Revell of Germany. 

I'm interested in seeing the Imperial Star Destroyer, since it will be 16" long, which is a decent size. It's also good to hear that the Republic Star Destroyer will be reissued.

This newest info does lead to some questions. Does this mean that Revell of Germany will not produce _any_ Rogue One kits in the "SnapTite Max" format? Will Revell USA produce those kits instead? Or has Revell abandoned the idea of producing more detailed Star War kits and will instead concentrate on toys for young boys? Not sure what the answer is, but it doesn't look good that the only new-tool kits to be announced are of the "Build and Play" type.

_If_ they don't produce better Star War kits for experienced modelers, Revell has basically handed that part of the market to Bandai...and any other company interested in doing Star War kits (Dragon being another). If that's the case, it's a shame. Revell was once the premier model kit company in USA, now they just reissue old kits and most new-tool kits are for kids with a couple of new-tool glue kits (mostly cars) thrown in just for the heck of it.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

spock62 said:


> Here's the latest news from Revell USA, posted on the CultTVMan site: Rogue One kits from Revell - CultTVman Fantastic Modeling


I'm comatose with enthusiasm.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

Pics from Tower Hobbies:

(click on Additional Pictures at bottom)

TowerHobbies.com | Revell 1/4000 Star Wars Imperial Star Destroyer Rogue 1


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

Certainly better than AMT's offering. But the stand has got to go!


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Unfortunately - the stand is built into the kit, by the look of it...


----------



## INVAR (Mar 28, 2014)

Yup. Just like the TFA build and play kits.

Lights. Sounds. Flip out display stand that makes it look like crap.

Will probably retail around $60-$70.

I'll keep praying harder for Bandai to make us proud.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The model is off enough it seems I would have to rebuild most of it to get it looking right- it might work to use as a starting point for another Imperial ship class.

I am going to pass on this one- I have enough kits to build that do not require major surgery to keep me happy until Bandai releases one of their own. Based on the small one we have seen they have the proportions and detail right.


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

uh.... guys.... these are f'ing SNAP TITES!!! 

(man, you guys scare me!)


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Buc said:


> uh.... guys.... these are f'ing SNAP TITES!!!
> 
> (man, you guys scare me!)


Well, the problem is, you're using an assembly method as a derogatory, and it really doesn't hold in the current age. 

If you haven't seen the Bandai Star Wars kits (and other kits. those Yamato 2199 models are jewels, ever one of them), you should. It's astonishing how good those things are. A kit that snaps together doesn't have to equal 'piece of crap' in this day and age.

There should be a new term for the pre-colored snap assembly 'toy' kits. The Japanese term 'play model' or Plamo of the '60s-mid '70s has evolved to come to mean any plastic model kit so that's off the table. 

*hahahaha* if I want to be mean I think just calling them 'Revell Star Wars kits' is term enough to mean 'not so good', but I strive to not be that mean.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

I think Bandai has put the snap issue to bed. I still glue my Bandai kits, but I certainly don't need to. Revell's aren't nearly as good, but Revell isn't playing in the same league as Bandai.


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

Uh...Buc...these are f'ing SNAP TITES!!! (tongue in cheek there)


































Just because a model does not glue together that does not mean it has to be an unassembled toy. Once again, Revell has shown that they are not in the business of making models for serious modelers.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

If you have a real hatred for snap Tite kits, just cut the pins off and glue the pieces together...

I think we need to have a new term for the mutant model kit/toy kits since Plamo has been corrupted. There are plenty of glue kits from Japan which have inaccurate shapes and play action features such as firing missiles and rubber wheels. With a lot of work they are adaptable for display but they are mostly aimed at kids to play with when done.


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

> Once again, Revell has shown that they are not in the business of making models for serious modelers.


and once again, you all miss that point and we get another 1m page thread 
moaning about um!


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Yep. Bandai snap together are top quality.


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

Well, no the point is, a once great model company that turned out plenty of detailed, desirable MODEL KITS has tuned its back on those modelers that helped build it into the company it is today. They have shifted their focus away from the people who have the money to spend on models to a group of people who care nothing about models. Revell now caters to a group of 8 year olds who want a toy that has flashy lights and makes vroom vroom sounds.
If Revell's ultimate goal is to get kids into modeling then stop trying to push an unassembled action toy off as a model. I don't think Revell really knows what "model kits" are anymore...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> If you have a real hatred for snap Tite kits, just cut the pins off and glue the pieces together...
> 
> I think we need to have a new term for the mutant model kit/toy kits since Plamo has been corrupted. There are plenty of glue kits from Japan which have inaccurate shapes and play action features such as firing missiles and rubber wheels. With a lot of work they are adaptable for display but they are mostly aimed at kids to play with when done.


I think his issue isn't so much the fact the kits snap together (I, like others have said, usually glue mine together anyway) as it is he's throwing 'snap fit' in with 'pre colored' and 'simplified' as a put-down, where the blame for the kits rests solely on the shoulders of Revell and the people making choices.

My thing is, if the point is these kits are supposed to be entry level, a hope to spark interest in model building in the new generation, then:

1. Why do they cost so damn much? $30 and up for a tiny 'build it' toy?!

2. Where are the 'next level' kits that the kids are supposed to graduate to?

So, yeah, kind of seems to be conflicts in intent going on here.

But at least Revell still sometimes crank out some wonderful old kits in their whatever it was called program. If you can find out about them.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

As mentioned on another forum, Revell on focusing on younger modelers with these kits and I feel now that they offer the old FineMolds kits for 'advanced' modelers Revell thinks everyone should be happy.

The ironic thing is that my son is in the demographic I believe they are aiming for (beginning modeler, 13 years of age) and he does not want the new Revell kits either- he prefers the Bandai kits instead.

Oh well, complaining about how Revell has abandoned us is not going to change their minds- sort of like complaining 'Rug Rats' is not 'Ghost in the Shell'. They are aiming for a different market and at least we can relax in knowing Bandai is wanting to make kits we want (as long as we can network to get them).


----------



## JediDad (Dec 5, 2009)

I am probably one of the few here, but when I am ready to buy the Episode VII kits I am going with the Revell level 2 kits over the Bandai kits. Why? Bandai's kits are too damn small for me. I want a 12" AT-ST, not a 7" one. One exception is their 1/144 Falcon, that one I am planning to get, though I wish that was a bit bigger too.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Here's the latest info on Revell's kits: 
Imperial AT-ACT, 1/100, 24.99: Revell SnapTite® Star Wars? Imperial AT-ACT? Cargo Walker Kit
Rebel U-Wing, 1/100, $24.99: Revell SnapTite® Star Wars? Rebel U-wing Fighter? Kit
Imperial Star Destroyer, 1/4000, 34.99: Revell SnapTite® Star Wars? Imperial Star Destroyer? Kit

All kits are Level 2, ages 8+ and are available at Target and Hobby Lobby starting 9/30/16.

These kits are still SnapTite Build & Play kits, but are now for slightly older kids. And anyone that wants real kits is out of luck, Revell doesn't care about you! :frown2: 
At least the AT-ACT and U-Wing are in the same scale.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

spock62 said:


> HAt least the AT-ACT and U-Wing are in the same scale.


How could those possibly be in the same scale? The walker is just under 8" tall and the U-Wing is 11" long. Judging by the trailers, the AT-ACT is bigger than the standard ESB walker, so the U-Wing can't possibly be that big in comparison. It would be bigger than the Millennium Falcon -- and I'm not sure that's the case.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Hunk A Junk said:


> How could those possibly be in the same scale? The walker is just under 8" tall and the U-Wing is 11" long. Judging by the trailers, the AT-ACT is bigger than the standard ESB walker, so the U-Wing can't possibly be that big in comparison. It would be bigger than the Millennium Falcon -- and I'm not sure that's the case.


Maybe Revell means the kits are the same scale using _their _standard of measurement (i.e. whatever they want it to be)!:grin2:


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

They're box scale. If they both come in the same size box, they're the same scale.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

spock62 said:


> Maybe Revell means the kits are the same scale using _their _standard of measurement (i.e. whatever they want it to be)!:grin2:


Where did you see the 1/100 scale marking? I don't see it on either page.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

edge10 said:


> Where did you see the 1/100 scale marking? I don't see it on either page.


Click on the "New Products" tab at the top of the page. In the "September" section, the Rogue One kits are listed along with their scales.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

spock62 said:


> Click on the "New Products" tab at the top of the page. In the "September" section, the Rogue One kits are listed along with their scales.


Got it! Thank you.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Revell has posted a message about their Rogue One AT-ACT kit on their Facebook page. So far, the reply posts have _not_ been flattering!


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

Should they rename it the ACK-ACK?

>


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

robiwon2 said:


> Should they rename it the ACK-ACK?
> 
> >


The ICK-ICK?


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

spock62 said:


> Revell has posted a message about their Rogue One AT-ACT kit on their Facebook page. So far, the reply posts have _not_ been flattering!


made by men still living in their Mom's basement, talking about
a kit aimed at 8+ yr olds. :x


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Buc said:


> made by men still living in their Mom's basement, talking about
> a kit aimed at 8+ yr olds. :x


Point of order: Where does it say a kit "aimed at 8 (and up, let us not forget that plus sign) year olds" must of necessity be of a lesser quality than other model kits? Where does it say that an 8 year old cannot want more, better, interesting kits? Where exactly does it say that if a kit is Skill Level 2 (a rather broad guideline) accuracy to the intended subject isn't required?

I mean, heck, with that thinking, why doesn't Revell just take some of their pre-painted pre-deco'd snap-fit aircraft kits, make some "STAR WARS REBELS" stickers to slap on the wings and call it good? 

Or they could take a tip from the Japanese and do Star Wars versions of 'Itasha' deco'ed cars which has somehow morphed its way onto aircraft

1/144 ULT01 F-15GH by Tomy Tech | HobbyLink Japan.

Yeah, an A-10 Warthog with 'old man Jedi Luke' decals plastered across the wings and back is EXACTLY what the 8 year olds of America want.


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

I sympathize with all you mumblers out here if THAT was the only kit out there.

So either it's a case of you're all too cheap to SPEND the $$$ that better,
more accurate kits call for, because there are more detailed kits out there...



or a bitching modeler is a happy modeler.


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

Um, who else make models of the ships and vehicles from Rogue One?


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Buc said:


> I sympathize with all you mumblers out here if THAT was the only kit out there.
> 
> So either it's a case of you're all too cheap to SPEND the $$$ that better,
> more accurate kits call for, because there are more detailed kits out there...
> ...


There are no other Rogue One kits announced other than a figure kit -- the Death Trooper -- from Bandai. So, for now, Revell's are the only ship kits announced. I think I speak for many in saying that if and when Bandai announces their U-Wing and AT-ACT, we won't care what Revell does.

Part of our "bitching" is also completely justified feedback about Revell's business decisions. Revell's kits, and not Bandai's, will be sitting on shelves at Target, Walmart, and Hobby Lobby at the end of the month. That's a pity. For those of us passionate about the hobby, we want kits to get better and better, not go the opposite direction. I think the point is that Revell claims to be dumbing down their Star Wars kits to appeal to kids when it wouldn't take much extra effort (especially since ILM's originals are digital) to make easy to assemble kits that have accurate proportions and details. It's a win-win. No one expects an 18" star destroyer model to perfectly match every kit-bashed detail from the original, but they could get the overall proportions and some of the details right (as Revell did with their Venator kit). The fact that they're not even bothering is what's irksome.


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

or.... they realize that the target audience isn't into model kits, but rather
snap together toys???


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

Their target audience is who they make it.

They make models, they are a model kit company, their target audience should be *model builders*. If it isn't then they need to get out of the model kit business, give up their SW model kit lic. and start making toys. Let the real model kit companies make real model kits, and Revell can continue to make "You Make It Happy Meal Toys"!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Revell's latest You Tube videos for their Rogue One toys:

U-Wing: 




Star Destroyer: 




Both are very toy-like. There's no reason Revell couldn't have done better. As for Revell's "target audience", it would seem to me that the majority of their customers are guys 30 and up, not kids. Making beginner kits for kids is fine, but ignoring the core of their customers is just puzzling.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

Thanks for the videos.

Gotta love that 'seam' between the bridge support and the main hull! Makes me almost forget the seam in the middle of the engine deck.


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

OMG!! OMG!! OMG!! I have to have those!! Gee wiz, those are just awesome to the max!!! They look just like they do in the movie shows!!!! With the excellent space engine sounds and fantastic lights I only have to do my own pew pew sounds and I'll be set to conquer the galaxy right in my own bedroom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't even need nasty glue or smelly paint!!!!!
Are these from McDonalds or Burger King?????


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

Definitely some assembly required toys, not models.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

The proportions on the star destroyer are looking better to me on the video. Assuming the seams aren't a nightmare to make invisible, it's possible this could be an okay base for super-detailing, but fixing the "stand" landing gear and the speaker holes will be one of those unforced error projects that makes Modeling Jesus cry.


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

I am by no means a Star Destroyer expert, but it doesn't look too bad to me for what it is. With a bit of love and paint it maybe could look pretty good.

And look, it's a child building it. Not a 50 yo man. I wonder what their target demographic is. >


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

The link for the AT-ACT Revell promo video. Hey look! GIRL POWER! 




The irony is that these kits are "build and play" and none of the videos show the kids, ya know, playing with the finished kits. They're just admiring them sitting on a table -- the same way some 50 year old modeler is likely to do. :freak:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

robiwon2 said:


> OMG!! OMG!! OMG!! I have to have those!! Gee wiz, those are just awesome to the max!!! They look just like they do in the movie shows!!!! With the excellent space engine sounds and fantastic lights I only have to do my own pew pew sounds and I'll be set to conquer the galaxy right in my own bedroom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I don't even need nasty glue or smelly paint!!!!!
> Are these from McDonalds or Burger King?????


Burger Chef.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Hunk A Junk said:


> The link for the AT-ACT Revell promo video. Hey look! GIRL POWER! Revell Star Wars™ Imperial AT-ACT™ Cargo Walker SnapTite® Build & Play™ plastic model kit - YouTube
> 
> The irony is that these kits are "build and play" and none of the videos show the kids, ya know, playing with the finished kits. They're just admiring them sitting on a table -- the same way some 50 year old modeler is likely to do. :freak:


I'm 58 and I still like to pick them up and go zoom- but they go zoom with accurate detail.


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

From the official Revell release page.....a few quotes...

"Like their predecessors, the three newest plastic model kits deliver hyper-realistic replicas of each vehicle"

"All models were designed with the same computer data used to create the movie props, resulting in strikingly accurate facsimiles of the vehicles that moviegoers experience on the big screen."

After reading that I blew coffee out my nose...


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

Just wait til you see the Star Destroyer fold out some panels and land on them in the movie...


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

electric indigo said:


> Just wait til you see the Star Destroyer fold out some panels and land on them in the movie...


I always wanted to see Darth Vader's TIE Fighter land on those weird chicken legs they included in that kit.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Richard Baker said:


> I'm 58 and I still like to pick them up and go zoom- but they go zoom with accurate detail.


I'm 50 and I don't so much "go zoom" as I do hold them to replicate camera angles on the screen. I did the same thing as a kid (though I "zoomed" some too), which is how even then I could tell when kits didn't look "right." I guess that's why Revell's "strategy" really bugs me. When I was a kid, it mattered to me that the Eagle's cockpit looked weird or that the Millennium Falcon's sidewalls were too tall. I wanted models that looked as close to what was on screen as possible, not toys with sounds and lights. As an adult, sure, I want accurate kits that don't require major surgery to fix, but I'm also legitimately thinking of the kids who are like me and want to build something we can imagine ILM making. If I wanted toys I'd buy boxes marked "Hasbro."


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> I always wanted to see Darth Vader's TIE Fighter land on those weird chicken legs they included in that kit.


Well, be fair, back in '77 nobody had really thought of fighters 'resting' on repulsorlift as 'landing gear'. Most of us assumed that TIE Fighters were launched and retrieved with a trapeze and gantry of some kind (and you could see indications of such a thing in the hanger the Falcon is drawn into), and Vader's TIE would have been no exception, OTOH since Vader's ship seemingly has a Hyperspace jump drive like the X-Wing, it would not be unrealistic to think it would have some form of conventional landing gear.

But yeah, those little legs really weren't too well thought out.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

The A-Wing never had landing gear on screen but Bandai did an excellent job inventing some (or they are from the Episode 8 craft).
One reason I hate,small capital ships is that they make it impossible to put your eye right to it and get that perspective view we do see on screen.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Well, be fair, back in '77 nobody had really thought of fighters 'resting' on repulsorlift as 'landing gear'.


By 1978, however, RMQ's pre-production paintings for the Rebel base on Hoth showed X-Wings without landing gear. Maybe an omission or maybe something they were toying with. I remember commenting to a buddy at the time about why ships needed landing gear if speeder "hover" technology was so commonplace.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net...quarrie.JPG/revision/latest?cb=20070802131525
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4f/b1/88/4fb188ea12ab6afec32b6ffd6c2d3818.jpg


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I think landing gear is very useful if the vehicle requires having it's power unit shut down during maintenance. 
It was mentioned somewhere I forget that the TIE fighters had no landing gear to make sure they were dependent on Imperial support- sort of like how Soviet aircraft had their radios fixed to specific frequencies so they could only communicate with USSR forces.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

With today being "Force Friday" and Revell having posted, since the 1st wk of September, that the 3 Rogue One kits would be out today (9/30/16) at Hobby Lobby and Target, I decided to take a trip to my local Hobby Lobby and check them out (I'm really only interested in the Imperial Star Destroyer). Turns out Hobby Lobby had NO Rogue One kits. They still have plenty of The Force Awakens kits, but that's it.

So, I decided to go to Target (which is in the opposite direction, my home sort of in the middle between the two stores). They had 2 each of the U-wing and AT-ACT kits. Both come in really small boxes, smaller then TFA Level 1 kits it seems and both cost just under $20. Neither store had what I really wanted, the ISD.

So having blown about an hour and x-amount of gas, I get home and after a couple of hours I check the Revell Facebook page, where there is a new post regarding the ISD kit. It will now be available on Amazon starting 10/21/16. Then, I get an email from Revell that announces their new Rogue One kits saying that the U-wing and AT-ACT will be available at Target, Hobby Lobby and Amazon on 9/30/16. The Imperial Star Destroyer? That will be available on 10/21/16 at all three retailers.

I'm assuming that Revell knew before today that the ISD wouldn't arrive until 10/21, so why wait until today to give us that info? Also, based on someones post on the Revell Facebook page, neither the Target or Hobby Lobby stores in his area had the other 2 Rogue One kits (like the Hobby Lobby in my area). So something is up with getting product to the stores depending on where you live.

To sum up, I wasted time and gas with nothing to show for it. The force was NOT with me today! :frown2:


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

From other posts on FB, your not the only one who came home empty handed.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

spock62 said:


> With today being "Force Friday" and Revell having posted, since the 1st wk of September, that the 3 Rogue One kits would be out today (9/30/16) at Hobby Lobby and Target, I decided to take a trip to my local Hobby Lobby and check them out (I'm really only interested in the Imperial Star Destroyer). Turns out Hobby Lobby had NO Rogue One kits. They still have plenty of The Force Awakens kits, but that's it.
> 
> So, I decided to go to Target (which is in the opposite direction, my home sort of in the middle between the two stores). They had 2 each of the U-wing and AT-ACT kits. Both come in really small boxes, smaller then TFA Level 1 kits it seems and both cost just under $20. Neither store had what I really wanted, the ISD.
> 
> ...


I wonder if this ultimately has anything to do with that South Korean shipping company that went bankrupt, stranding many, many ships off our coasts (they can't pay the docking fees and such), unable to dock and land all those tens of thousands of shipping containers from Chinese factories.


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

I picked up a U-Wing from Target. Obviously, I noticed a few minor inaccuracies right away, because it's Revell. The biggest problem being missing panel detail on the engine housing. I'm gonna cut these panels from sheet stryrene, it should be fairly easy. The proton launcher indents are also missing next to the cockpit. There are no panel lines around the cockpit canopy. A few other panel lines are inaccurate on the main body. I'm gonna rescribe some more accurate ones. The vents on the very back like the snowspeeder aren't in this kit at all. Completely omitted. However, the overall proportions of the craft look dead on.

Surprisingly, it comes with some pretty detailed pilots, seats, and cockpit consoles. Not Bandai quality, but not far off either. It's great for kids, and a skilled modeler could get this looking very close to ILM's CG model with only a little bit of work. Overall, I'd say the shape of the craft is around 95-100% accurate, and details are probably 80-85% accurate.


----------



## sg-99 (Jan 11, 2009)

A couple of videos of the kits


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Picked up a U-Wing yesterday. Did a quick assembly that I'll pull back apart to do right later. It took no more than 5 minutes.

For Revell, it's not bad. Simplified, toy-like in places, but proportionally decent. About the most annoying thing is that, based on the pilot figures, it looks slightly smaller than 1/72. If it's that close, why not just adjust the scale slightly and make it an accurate 1/72???


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Picked up a U-Wing yesterday. Did a quick assembly that I'll pull back apart to do right later. It took no more than 5 minutes.
> 
> For Revell, it's not bad. Simplified, toy-like in places, but proportionally decent. About the most annoying thing is that, based on the pilot figures, it looks slightly smaller than 1/72. If it's that close, why not just adjust the scale slightly and make it an accurate 1/72???


The designer has stated the U-wing is 1/101 scale.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Daniel_B said:


> The designer has stated the U-wing is 1/101 scale.


I'm no expert on scales, but is that some sort of standard scale? Maybe in military figures or something?

To me, this is just more evidence of Revell's sloppy, not give a crap attitude toward Star Wars subjects. They just start with the box and work backwards to whatever size fits in it. The fact that they'd even bother to come up with some claim of scale is just an insult.

But they got my $20, so the joke's on me.


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I'm no expert on scales, but is that some sort of standard scale? Maybe in military figures or something?
> 
> To me, this is just more evidence of Revell's sloppy, not give a crap attitude toward Star Wars subjects. They just start with the box and work backwards to whatever size fits in it. The fact that they'd even bother to come up with some claim of scale is just an insult.
> 
> But they got my $20, so the joke's on me.


No, it's not standard scale. It's just box scale.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Revell is still in the old mindset where people who build SciFi kits do not care about scale- that consideration lies in the realm of 'real world' subjects- cars, military, etc...
Since SciFi stuff doesn't really exist, it does not matter what size it is.

It is maddening to have kits 'close' to a proper scale- a very minor adjustment and it could be without additional work or plastic.

This is also the reason I am grateful when other model companies do take scale into consideration and treat us as serious builders instead of just kids wanting to hang stuff from their ceiling.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

To be fair, 1/101 scale is so minor a difference that you can put that kit with your other 1/100 scale models and it won't be noticeable at all. 

Oh, wait. Unless you count the huge amount of Gundam kits there's not that much out there in 1/100. Only thing I can recall in my fevered brain is Takara making a passel of 1/100 scale contemporary fighter aircraft in the '80s, tied in to a Japanese comic called 'Area 88'. I believe those kits got re-issued a number of times sans the manga-specific markings up til the point Takara gave up making plastic kits.

I guess my puzzlement comes from wondering why, if the developer had the ability to scale the kit, why NOT just add those micro-millimeters to the digital tooling master to bring it to 1/100? It would still fit in the allowed space of the box, the parts would fit within the allotted space of the pour sprues, the additional plastic needed should be well within the 'slop' allowed for mistakes and accidental flash and so on. 

Hm.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Steve H said:


> I guess my puzzlement comes from wondering why, if the developer had the ability to scale the kit, why NOT just add those micro-millimeters to the digital tooling master to bring it to 1/100?


Or to 1/72? It would've added, maybe, an inch, inch and a half, to the overall length.

And here's where Disney's marketing and licensing departments are missing the ball. They have two licensees -- Revell and Bandai -- both making U-Wing model kits. Both kits are going to be in different scales. If Bandai is making theirs in 1/144, why in the name of Hades wouldn't you have Revell make theirs in a larger accepted scale, like 1/72??? Revell could still have all the "lights and sound" play-toy features they seem to believe customers want, but they'd still make modelers over the age of 4 relatively happy as well.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Plus 1/72 makes it a bigger toy, but not TOO big for a kid to play with. 

So, yeah, headscratching all around. 

Don't worry, Bandai will likely release a U-Wing in 1/72 that will kick so much a** one would be hard pressed to find enough a** left that would be worth being kicked.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Has Revell ever issued ANY GENRE model kit is a recognized scale? 
I do know Revell-Germany has some Trek kits at 1:600 (Not counting the NuE because their stated scale does not remotely come close to the in universe size).

Tweak a box scale up or down a small notch to match a recognized scale- they just do not care to.
The only things issued which would be in a scale are the old Fine Molds kits they are selling.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

I've been comparing images of the ILM asset against the Revell U-Wing. The main hull is fairly accurate, but completely missing a snowspeeder engine vent on the back of the hull between the four engines. It's a very prominent detail on the original and really surprising (or maybe not) it's just not there at all.

Perhaps the biggest flaw -- and it's going to be a beeyahtch to fix -- is that the pivot point on the wings is in the wrong position. When the wings pivot back, the pivot is too far back. The thickest part of the wing should be spaced right between the engine pods. This makes the wings look too thin where they connect to the main body and too long overall. It also looks like the wings, when extended, are missing some detail on the leading edge.

So, overall, the proportions are fairly good. The moment you start looking closer, however, the worse things look. Details missing. Structural flaws. 

But, it makes pew-pew sounds. So there's that.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

I make better pew-pew sounds in my head.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Oh. And the landing gear are in the wrong positions.

And the engine nozzles have the wrong taper. The original is more rounded at the rear.


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Ok, here are the lines I filled and new ones I scribed. The blue lines are the newly scribed lines, and the red are the lines already on the kit that I filled. I had never scribed panel lines before, so I was nervous. However, it actually wasn't too bad at all.










And without the graphic lines...


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Daniel_B said:


> Ok, here are the lines I filled and new ones I scribed. The blue lines are the newly scribed lines, and the red are the lines already on the kit that I filled. I had never scribed panel lines before, so I was nervous. However, it actually wasn't too bad at all.


Based on all the errors you mentioned and what corrections you've shown so far, it's hard to believe that Revell actually brags about basing these kits on offical CAD drawings as they did in their e-mail announcement they sent out! Here's the content of the announcement (highlighted words are my doing, not Revell's):

*Right out of Star Wars™ Rogue One™!*

You are the first to see the Revell Star Wars™ Snaptite® Build & Play™ plastic model kits. 3 exciting vehicles, _*all based on official CAD designs from the upcoming film*_. Battle action lights and sounds bring you into the Star Wars™ galaxy. Easy snap together assembly. No tools, paint or glue needed, perfect for ages 8+. Build them all! Available at Target, Hobby Lobby and Amazon.com on 9/30/2016. Star Destroyer available 10/21/16.​


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

spock62 said:


> Based on all the errors you mentioned and what corrections you've shown so far, it's hard to believe that Revell actually brags about basing these kits on offical CAD drawings as they did in their e-mail announcement they sent out! Here's the content of the announcement (highlighted words are my doing, not Revell's):
> 
> *Right out of Star Wars™ Rogue One™!*
> 
> You are the first to see the Revell Star Wars™ Snaptite® Build & Play™ plastic model kits. 3 exciting vehicles, _*all based on official CAD designs from the upcoming film*_. Battle action lights and sounds bring you into the Star Wars™ galaxy. Easy snap together assembly. No tools, paint or glue needed, perfect for ages 8+. Build them all! Available at Target, Hobby Lobby and Amazon.com on 9/30/2016. Star Destroyer available 10/21/16.​


*hehe* but look carefully at what they say and what they DON'T say.

"Based on official CAD designs..." OK, sure, official as in 'supplied by Lucasfilm/Disney', but nowhere does it specify 'based on finalized CAD drawings which generated screen used CGI'


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> *hehe* but look carefully at what they say and what they DON'T say.
> 
> "Based on official CAD designs..." OK, sure, official as in 'supplied by Lucasfilm/Disney', but nowhere does it specify 'based on finalized CAD drawings which generated screen used CGI'


True, but that's assuming Revell did not receive finalized CAD/CGI files. Do we know this to definitely be the case? If true, how is it that, for the most part, Bandai seems to get the finalized info? Do they communicate their needs better or is it that Revell doesn't care as much (to make as accurate as possible kits) since they feel their Star Wars kits are just for kids?


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

spock62 said:


> True, but that's assuming Revell did not receive finalized CAD/CGI files. Do we know this to definitely be the case? If true, how is it that, for the most part, Bandai seems to get the finalized info? Do they communicate their needs better or is it that Revell doesn't care as much (to make as accurate as possible kits) since they feel their Star Wars kits are just for kids?


I was told by someone who worked on Revell's product development team that their models are VERY accurate to the CAD/CGI files they received. He said any inaccuracies now are the result of the CGI asset being changed at ILM after the original files were sent to Revell. Being a VFX artist myself, this could very well be the case. Models and effects are tweaked until last minute.

There are even shots in the Force Awakens where the surface paint job on the Millennium Falcon is different between shots because they were done months apart and the model and textures were tweaked.

Revell may have needed the U-Wing asset a very long time ago to get started on protoyping. Bandai may have more advanced methods at their disposal which would allow them to take CAD assets very late and still crank out a product by movie time.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Daniel_B said:


> I was told by someone who worked on Revell's product development team that their models are VERY accurate to the CAD/CGI files they received. He said any inaccuracies now are the result of the CGI asset being changed at ILM after the original files were sent to Revell. Being a VFX artist myself, this could very well be the case. Models and effects are tweaked until last minute.
> 
> There are even shots in the Force Awakens where the surface paint job on the Millennium Falcon is different between shots because they were done months apart and the model and textures were tweaked.
> 
> Revell may have needed the U-Wing asset a very long time ago to get started on protoyping. Bandai may have more advanced methods at their disposal which would allow them to take CAD assets very late and still crank out a product by movie time.


If that's the case, how is it that Hasbro's toy of the U-wing was able to get right the details that Revell got wrong? Hasbro has the rear vanes and appears to have the panel lines Revell left off. So, either Revell needed a looong time to develop the kit, and only had preliminary files to work with OR since Revell views these "kits" as just for kids, their attitude is "what difference does it make to try and get the details right?" Another way to say it is that Hasbro cares more about getting a toy right then Revell does about getting a model kit right.


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

Yes, Revell and Bandai got CAD files for their ships from Lucas/Disney. Yes they used them to design their kits.

The big difference in why the two companies ships look different is that Revell makes toys for 8 year olds and Bandai makes model kits for model builders of all ages.

I would rather give my 8 year old Grandson a Bandai kit than a Revell kit. As a matter of fact, at the last two WonderFest expo's he has attended, he went to the "Make and Take" class. Both kits he picked were Bandai kits, one a starship and the other a Gundam robot.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

robiwon2 said:


> Yes, Revell and Bandai got CAD files for their ships from Lucas/Disney. Yes they used them to design their kits.
> 
> The big difference in why the two companies ships look different is that Revell makes toys for 8 year olds and Bandai makes model kits for model builders of all ages.
> 
> I would rather give my 8 year old Grandson a Bandai kit than a Revell kit. As a matter of fact, at the last two WonderFest expo's he has attended, he went to the "Make and Take" class. Both kits he picked were Bandai kits, one a starship and the other a Gundam robot.


My son saw the Revell kits at Target and decided to pass as well- I was so proud...


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

The bottom line is that when it comes to sci-fi subjects Revell is a model company that would rather be a toy company. It doesn't matter whether Revell got reference files from ILM or not. At best, they used them only to the point where they thought their kit was good enough for a bunch of dumb kids. Or they're using the excuse of 'dumb kids' to justify their own disinterest in doing their jobs. How much time and effort did their design team spend engineering the lights and sound modules? If they'd applied that same time and effort into making sure the details were accurate -- at least as accurate as the files they were supposedly given in the first place -- they'd have a decent kit. I mean, none of us have access to those files and it takes us all of 2 minutes looking at images on the Internet to see all the obvious things that are wrong! They can't possibly miss all this stuff by accident! The fact that they prioritized shiny lights and pew-pew sounds over making the kit LOOK like the thing its supposed to represent shows they either don't care or think very little of their customers.


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

Most likely the isn't much profit in the Sci-Fi kits. It is a very small niche market. Revell's bread and butter are car kits and aircraft - way more modelers for those subjects out there.


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

and probably bitch and moan far less ... ratio numbers times 5 squared.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

scooke123 said:


> Most likely the isn't much profit in the Sci-Fi kits. It is a very small niche market. Revell's bread and butter are car kits and aircraft - way more modelers for those subjects out there.


Does anyone have any actual numbers on this? I don't know about sci-fi kits in general, but Star Wars anything are usually solid sellers.

Regardless, it doesn't change the critical fact that somehow, despite making kits of the exact same subjects, Bandai somehow manages to make accurate kits when Revell just can't possibly do it. Bandai's kits are affordable. They're easy enough for kids to assemble. They're accurate. I'm sure Bandai also has 'bread and butter' kits, yet somehow they still manage to treat their sci-fi subjects with some measure of care and respect.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Buc said:


> and probably bitch and moan far less ... ratio numbers times 5 squared.


You're right. Screw it. Nobody on a hobby website should be passionate about their hobby. Nope. No one should suggest that a model manufacturer in the 21st century should use basic tools of research and design to make their kits actually look like the things they're supposed to represent. How silly of us. We deserve nothing and should be grateful consumers of whatever halfassed offerings they pull out of their rear ends to sell us. No one should ever try to do better! Don't improve! Don't use modern technology! Don't make any extra effort! Be grateful for sub-mediocrity, ya'll.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Buc said:


> and probably bitch and moan far less ... ratio numbers times 5 squared.


If your suggesting that car and plane modelers complain less about inaccurate models, based on the forums I frequent, I would say your wrong. Most modelers, whatever subject/s they model, do not like inaccurate models (and NO I'm not talking about 100% accuracy, all kits have some errors or omissions). As has been mentioned, there is really no excuse for poorly detailed, inaccurate kits today, not with CGI files and yes, even the internet, available for reference material. And anyone who gives these companies a pass for producing such kits isn't helping the hobby, regardless of what they might think.

I could go on, but what's the point. Many of us have explained how we feel and why. You just ignore that and continue to scold us for "bitching and moaning", like it's your right to pass judgement over other modelers that disagree with you. Sounds like you get off on putting others down. And _that attitude_ doesn't help anyone or this hobby.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Some suit is going to look at the dismal sales figures for these kits and assume that nobody wants to build Star Wars models anymore. Let's cut the budget and move the extra into other product lines instead.


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

This should be considered false advertising. This is the old pocket kit I believe in new packaging. Copied from a post on the RPF.









And what it actually looks like.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

One of the other things about these "build and play" kits is that Revell has pre-removed the pieces from the sprue and put them in plastic blister packs. There are no sprues any more. Building one of these kits is more like putting together Legos than it is building a model (worse than that, a Revell Lego-model can't be built into anything else). 

Which brings up the question: At what point have you removed so much of the 'model building' process that it stops being a G-D model?

"Hey Look, Johnny, now they're making models without any of that annoying model-making stuff!"


----------



## robiwon2 (Jun 26, 2016)

Please stop calling these "models". That is an insult to real modelers. These have no more detail than a Happy Meal toy....


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

robiwon2 said:


> This should be considered false advertising. This is the old pocket kit I believe in new packaging. Copied from a post on the RPF.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No more false advertising than featuring movie stills of the Falcon and TOS-BSG on the packaging on those original kit releases. What is important is that a true model shot, built O-O-B is fshown somewhere on the packaging so a buyer has a chance to see what they are buying.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

robiwon2 said:


> Please stop calling these "models". That is an insult to real modelers. These have no more detail than a Happy Meal toy....


They really should come up with a more accurate name for these hybrid toys


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Richard Baker said:


> They really should come up with a more accurate name for these hybrid toys


Toydel.

BTW, it's laughable that Revell puts a "skill level" scale on these build and play kits. There is no 'skill' involved. You don't even need the skill of reading.

I'm sure if Revell was in the puzzle-making business they'd be producing puzzles with 4 pieces and praise themselves for making puzzles fun enough for children of ALL ages!


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Steve H said:


> To be fair, 1/101 scale is so minor a difference that you can put that kit with your other 1/100 scale models and it won't be noticeable at all.
> 
> Oh, wait. Unless you count the huge amount of Gundam kits there's not that much out there in 1/100. Only thing I can recall in my fevered brain is Takara making a passel of 1/100 scale contemporary fighter aircraft in the '80s, tied in to a Japanese comic called 'Area 88'. I believe those kits got re-issued a number of times sans the manga-specific markings up til the point Takara gave up making plastic kits.
> 
> ...


The old MPC AT-AT's are 1/96, so you could conceivably group those together.

Also, the old Space 1999 Eagle kit is also 1/96 scale.

1/96 is sometimes referred to as 'Museum Scale' because a lot of displays of ships and stuff are built to that scale.
And 1/96 is kind of common in R/C ship modeling. (look at the old Revell USS Constitution kit........ 1/96).

So there are a FEW items out there.

There also was a decent number of 1/100 scale aircraft out there.


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

Hunk A Junk said:


> You're right. Screw it.


and yet later on, you yourself call them Toydel. (which makes
my point nicely...but nevermind)

...meanwhile I see Bandai have the same kits coming out, PROBABLY, 
aimed more at your level. (although there'll be pages of pages of
MORE whining there cuz, you know... a bitching modeler is a
happy modeler.

but... carry on!


----------

