# Revel vs. AMT/MPC



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

How do the recent Star Wars kits by Revel stand up to their AMT/MPC counterparts? I mean, which is more accurate, the original Tydirium shuttle or the new release? Same with the AT-AT?

Either the AMT ones were skinny in places or the Revel ones are much bigger and some parts are disproportionate and thicker than what I remember them being.


----------



## osikach (Jun 26, 2004)

I don't have a whole lot of the newer Revell kits because I've been trying to stay as close to 1/72 scale as I can. In that respect, it is mostly agreed that the Revell AT-AT is 1/72 scale, or as close as we'll ever get. I haven't seen the old MPC kit in ages. I think the head on the MPC kit is better than the Revell kit, but a replacement is coming soon for that.

Don't have the Imperial shuttle, so don't know how that compares. I did get my step-son the Millennium Falcon. It's smaller than the MPC kit, so it doesn't compare scale wise. It has some more greeblies, but still no where near as detailed as the Fine Molds. The sidewalls are still too tall.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I've heard the Revell shuttle gets the same things wrong as the MPC shuttle, but I don't have one to compare.


----------



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

When Revell originally got the licence they released a kit of the Republic Star Destroyer which is incredibly well detailed and is a conventional kit, that is, you need to glue it together and paint it.
I'm not sure whether the current snap-fix pre-paint issue is from the same molds.
I've seen some of the other pre-paints and they look fairly decent and can obviously be repainted to suit.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

osikach said:


> I did get my step-son the Millennium Falcon...The sidewalls are still too tall.





John P said:


> I've heard the Revell shuttle gets the same things wrong as the MPC shuttle...


I don't know how true this is, but when Revell Germany announced they were going to produce a line of Star Wars kits (ships from the original trilogy) word spread pretty quickly on the 'Net that the reference materials (drawings, dimensions, etc.) LucasArts/Film/Whatever provided them were the _exact_ same materials they'd sent to AMT back in the day, and that Revell was contractually obligated to produce the kits in accordance with those materials (i.e., they were not allowed to make corrections to make the kits more "accurate"). As such, both the Revell kits and their AMT counterparts contain almost all of the same inaccuracies like the too-tall sidewalls on the Millennium Falcon; essentially, both companies were producing the same kits in different scales with slightly different engineering. The fact that both companies' kits are nearly identical except for size seems to support the stories.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Zombie_61 said:


> I don't know how true this is, but when Revell Germany announced they were going to produce a line of Star Wars kits (ships from the original trilogy) word spread pretty quickly on the 'Net that the reference materials (drawings, dimensions, etc.) LucasArts/Film/Whatever provided them were the _exact_ same materials they'd sent to AMT back in the day, and that Revell was contractually obligated to produce the kits in accordance with those materials (i.e., they were not allowed to make corrections to make the kits more "accurate"). As such, both the Revell kits and their AMT counterparts contain almost all of the same inaccuracies like the too-tall sidewalls on the Millennium Falcon; essentially, both companies were producing the same kits in different scales with slightly different engineering. The fact that both companies' kits are nearly identical except for size seems to support the stories.


So how is it that Fine Molds gets around this??

When I get a chance to match subject for subject, I generally prefer the MPC stuff.
The MPC AT-AT is actually a really good representation of the subject.
The Revell AT-AT proportionately is correct (except for the head, which is a mess). Its scale is closer to 1/64, than 1/72 unfortunately.

And again on the Triderium, the detail is executed a little better.

But as was said, inaccuracies abound.

I found an interesting thing when I compared the Revell Y-wing to the fine molds kit. The revell kit was considerably shorter. But width and height were the same.

As I write this, I am developing more concern for the Revell Trek stuff.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

ClubTepes said:


> So how is it that Fine Molds gets around this??


Simple: They paid a higer license fee - and they did so because they have another target customer group than Revell!

The target group of Revell are kids, not the advanced modelers. Did you care as a kid that bold no. 12 on the AMT X-Wing starboard wing underside was wrong? I didn't. I just slammed it together and "woooshed" it through my room. So why should Revell pay a higher license fee for a target customer that won`t care about it?

It is all about making money. NOT about making a modeler like you and me happy.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Marco Scheloske said:


> It is all about making money. NOT about making a modeler like you and me happy.


Unless, making us happy brings them more money which . . . er, uh, means it's still all about making money. :freak:


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Unless, making us happy brings them more money which . . . er, uh, means it's still all about making money. :freak:


I guess you know exactly what I`m talking about, but just to be sure:

If your target group buys your stuff wether or not you spend twice the money for the molds and licenses it makes no sense to spend that money. So the guys in charge won`t say "hey, for the 50 modelers out there who want a model perfect down to the last bolt: Let spent us 5 Million Euros more!". No they will say "ok, forget those 50 modelers - it saves us 5 Million Euros!". :wave:


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Marco Scheloske said:


> If your target group buys your stuff wether or not you spend twice the money for the molds and licenses it makes no sense to spend that money. So the guys in charge won`t say "hey, for the 50 modelers out there who want a model perfect down to the last bolt: Let spent us 5 Million Euros more!". No they will say "ok, forget those 50 modelers - it saves us 5 Million Euros!". :wave:


Are you sure about this, Marco? I always thought that kit companies based their entire marketing strategy on the posts from this board and SSM.



Jim


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Simple: They paid a higer license fee - and they did so because they have another target customer group than Revell!
> 
> The target group of Revell are kids, not the advanced modelers. Did you care as a kid that bold no. 12 on the AMT X-Wing starboard wing underside was wrong? I didn't. I just slammed it together and "woooshed" it through my room. So why should Revell pay a higher license fee for a target customer that won`t care about it?
> 
> It is all about making money. NOT about making a modeler like you and me happy.


Actually I did care. As a teenager I was writing to AMT about inaccuracies in the Enterprise and offering suggestions on simple ways of making the kit better such as more accurate decals (like what R2 is doing now). I was even invited to visit AMT/Ertl in the early 90's.

I sat down with Tom Walsh (then product manager) and one of their kit designers and talked Trek kits. 
I was (and still am) a tireless advocate of sci-fi kits in similiar scales rather than 'box' scale.

I'm kinda amazed at the idea of 'you buy the cheap liscense, you get the inaccurate reference material' vs. the 'pay more money you get the good material'. If true, I call that crap.

So if true, all those thinking that Revell of Germany is the savior of the Trek line, will be really surprised when their new models of the Enterprise and Klingon ship are made from the old crappy reference material.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

A license is a license. The quality of the product depends on what the company wants to put into it, time, research, development, and the approval process. 

Maybe today the model kit market is an exclusive niche group of adult hobbyists who expect studio accurate kits. But I have to say, I loved the Star Wars kits from the 70's. And the Star Trek kits from the 80's. If it looked like an X-Wing it was an X-Wing. Even today I wouldn't hardly know the inaccuracies if it wasn't pointed out to me on these forums.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Solium said:


> A license is a license. The quality of the product depends on what the company wants to put into it, time, research, development,


No!

It is not "a license is a license". Revell wanted to make a couple of things different with the large Falcon and the first pocket easykits, but they weren't allowed to do by Lucas!! It is really a thing of "dividing the market like a fresh made pie": Revell got the "cheap" license for their children target group, and Master Replicas (for example) the expensive one for collectors items.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

ClubTepes said:


> Actually I did care. As a teenager


Revell is not out for teenagers. They are out for kids (6-10 years old).


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

ClubTepes said:


> So if true, all those thinking that Revell of Germany is the savior of the Trek line, will be really surprised


I don`t think those kits will be state-of-the-art ones...


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Marco Scheloske said:


> No!
> 
> It is not "a license is a license". Revell wanted to make a couple of things different with the large Falcon and the first pocket easykits, but they weren't allowed to do by Lucas!! It is really a thing of "dividing the market like a fresh made pie": Revell got the "cheap" license for their children target group, and Master Replicas (for example) the expensive one for collectors items.


Well its one thing for Lucas to say he wants the models to look a certain way. But I don't think theres a "cheap" license where your 'forced" to make an inferior product. If that is the case then I guess Moebius Iron Man license must have been really cheap! Cause it sure was a stinker pose.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Solium said:


> Well its one thing for Lucas to say he wants the models to look a certain way. But I don't think theres a "cheap" license where your 'forced" to make an inferior product. If that is the case then I guess Moebius Iron Man license must have been really cheap! Cause it sure was a stinker pose.


As much as I don't like it, it certainly seems to be true.

Yes, Moebius was not allowed to make another pose.

And now, Moebius's 1/6 scale Cylon Centurian is not allowed to articulate.
Why? I don't know except that It could be construed as an 'action figure', even though the true action figure is 1/10th scale. The other 1/6th figure is the long out of production 'Majestic Studios' figure.

Legal nitpicking and corporate greed, stifling creativity and coolness in product.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Solium said:


> Well its one thing for Lucas to say he wants the models to look a certain way. But I don't think theres a "cheap" license where your 'forced" to make an inferior product.


Well, I KNOW for sure that it is handled that way (I have a contact here at Revell Germany). A license is not a "do what you want"-paper. It is very well negotiated what the amount of money you`re willing to pay will allow you to do.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Well, I KNOW for sure that it is handled that way (I have a contact here at Revell Germany). A license is not a "do what you want"-paper. It is very well negotiated what the amount of money you`re willing to pay will allow you to do.


You're obviously right about that. Whereas AMT in the 1960s was probably free to make the 1701 a lot more accurate as a plastic kit, it did not. There may be more options and products made available nowadays but it may be hit and miss on whether we get a model with what we want included in terms of accuracy and detailing.

From what is pointed out here, it seems that such decisions are micromanaged according to the license holders who want to subdivide their property like a timeshare condo with various gradations of luxury depending on how much one company wants to spend. That is unfortunate since the arbitrary dividing up of those options may leave out what we would want most.

Pleasing the customer to a greater degree in order to make more money may not be limited anymore by the law of diminishing returns dictating a stopping point in the design. It may be limited not so much by the company and how much time and money they're willing to spend but on which company got there first and how the contracts wound up being distributed. It's even possible that a super-accurate plastic kit is not even an option if there is a company producing completed models to the nth degree of accuracy.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It's even possible that a super-accurate plastic kit is not even an option if there is a company producing completed models to the nth degree of accuracy.


Exactly!


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Well, I KNOW for sure that it is handled that way (I have a contact here at Revell Germany). A license is not a "do what you want"-paper. It is very well negotiated what the amount of money you`re willing to pay will allow you to do.


I know a license is not a do as you want paper. Just because you have a license to make an X-Wing toy, dosent mean you can make an X-wing Ornament or an X-Wing Model kit.

As we know Moebius could not make a more dynamic pose for the Iron Man kit. (Other licensees had the nabs on the more dynamic poses) But I don't think he paid less for the styrene plastic model kit license because of the pose. The cost of the Iron Man plastic kit model license would have been the same regardless of the pose approved. 

What I don't get is this idea a license says you gotta make inaccurate cheap model kits and it says that in the licenses.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Solium said:


> What I don't get is this idea a license says you gotta make inaccurate cheap model kits and it says that in the licenses.


If you like it or not: This is exactly what the license between Lucas and Revell Germany said. To be exact: Lucas provided plans to Revell and they were forced to use them "by the book" without any changes, regardless if they would enhance the kits or not. Revell tried to made some little tweaks here and there and was stopped by Lucas.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Marco Scheloske said:


> If you like it or not: This is exactly what the license between Lucas and Revell Germany said. To be exact: Lucas provided plans to Revell and they were forced to use them "by the book" without any changes, regardless if they would enhance the kits or not. Revell tried to made some little tweaks here and there and was stopped by Lucas.


Ok, since you said it that way. thanks for the clarification. I obviously was speaking out of my butt.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

ClubTepes said:


> And now, Moebius's 1/6 scale Cylon Centurian is not allowed to articulate.
> Why? I don't know except that It could be construed as an 'action figure', even though the true action figure is 1/10th scale.



That's correct. They'd have a license for a model kit, not an articulated (action) figure, which would be a different license. The size of the figure doesn't matter - there are all sizes of action figures.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that to make top-quality high-value product, you need to pay top dollar for the license, because you can make more money with that high-end product, and the licensor would want a piece of that action. 

If you want a cheaper license, you can only produce a lower-end product. If you want to tweak the product to improve it, this would mean better sales, more money, and so the license would need to be renegotiated. It's all based on how much money the product would make, isn't it? 

The licensors are businessmen, not modelers, no?


----------



## rkoenn (Dec 18, 2007)

Solium said:


> Well its one thing for Lucas to say he wants the models to look a certain way. But I don't think theres a "cheap" license where your 'forced" to make an inferior product. If that is the case then I guess Moebius Iron Man license must have been really cheap! Cause it sure was a stinker pose.


I think Frank has stated that he has been limited to certain things by the licensor. I believe Ironman had restrictions on the pose and he has having some difficulties I understand with his new Dracula. So it certainly could be that some accuracy issues could be due to this. But it also is true I would believe that for Revell and Star Wars models that development cost is a big factor and if reducing accuracy and detail while still releasing a product capable of satisfying 98% of the people you are going to sell the model to that they would go for the cost savings. When I was a kid the accuracy didn't matter much at all to me as long as it looked fundamentally accurate.

Bob K.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

the license to make a "cheap" model kit might not cost less than a license for an expensive kit, because the licensee will be selling more of the cheaper one, and be amortizing that cost over more units sold. 

heres how some licenses are done in the halloween industry (which is probably very similar to the hobby industry): lets say you want to produce a kit of a certain movie spaceship. one of the things that needs to be determined when the license is being drawn up is the target price point of the model kit, its "manufacturers suggested retail price". doing this allows the rights owner to license the same ship to multiple companies, as long as there is a significant difference in their respective price points, since that difference in cost means that the 2 kits are not in direct competition with each other. 
ok now that the retail price of the kit has been negotiated and determined, the model kit company has to figure put how to make them within those price limitations and still make a profit. doing so is naturally going to limit the amount of time and money (including the cost of the license itself) that the manufacturer can spend developing and prototyping that kit. so between those constraints and the licensor's demands about the appearance of the subject, the manufacturer is limited in just how accurate they can make it. 

the upshot is that it is the terms, not the cost, of the license that determines the price of the kit, and that price, combined with the rights owner's demands about the subject's appearance, will affect the appearance and accuracy of the kit.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

razorwyre1 said:


> the license to make a "cheap" model kit might not cost less than a license for an expensive kit,


Well, that`s all just a guess by you, isn`t it?

I have a contact here at Revell Germany, and so I _know_ which possible ways they had: Getting an _expensive_ license for more accurate kits, or getting a _cheap _one for the ones they released in the last months / years.

It`s not a guess. It's how it really happened.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Lucasfilm is likely a bit of an oddball in offering licenses at varying levels depending on accuracy.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Well, that`s all just a guess by you, isn`t it?
> 
> I have a contact here at Revell Germany, and so I _know_ which possible ways they had: Getting an _expensive_ license for more accurate kits, or getting a _cheap _one for the ones they released in the last months / years.
> 
> It`s not a guess. It's how it really happened.


Marco:

Thank you very much for clearing this matter up. :thumbsup: You've done a real service as far as I'm concerned. 

Contract law can be just about anything, especially when it comes to defying common sense and one's logical expectations. It's nice to know what is really going on in some of these cases so that we can make better informed purchasing decisions and adjust our expectations from certain companies and certain subject matter accordingly.


----------



## geoffdude (Mar 31, 2009)

John P said:


> That's correct. They'd have a license for a model kit, not an articulated (action) figure, which would be a different license. The size of the figure doesn't matter - there are all sizes of action figures.


Actually the size of the figure DOES matter. One company, say HASBRO, can have the rights to Marvel characters above 3.5" and below 6". While other companies can have Marvel character rights for figures above 6" only (say Diamond Select), and another company can have Marvel character rights for figures under 3.5" (say minimates).

That's the way these Lic. deals are struck for action figures, models, etc. Detail, size, and format all factor in.

Regards,

Geoff


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

More and more convoluted! :lol:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> More and more convoluted! :lol:


Q: How many movie licensed action figures can dance on the head of a pin?

A: Up to an infinite number according to how the contracts are written.:freak:


----------



## xr4sam (Dec 9, 1999)

Shakespeare was right. 

This legal crap is ridiculous!  All so Georgie-Boy and his shysters can collect a few more shekels. What a load of bovine excrement!


----------

