# First picture of REVELL Germany Star Trek kits



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Hi fellows,

from the IPMS germany website, the prototpyes of the TOS Enterprise and the D7 cruiser:


----------



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

Nice 


Bor


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

is it just me, or do those look suspiciously like the amt kits?


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

razorwyre1 said:


> is it just me, or do those look suspiciously like the amt kits?


Those are completely new toolings, but the size make them look familiar. They are only a tad larger than the AMT ones.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I don't think so ... is that a taper on the nacelles?


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

SteveR said:


> I don't think so ... is that a taper on the nacelles?


hm?

Just to make one thing clear: Those are the VERY first prototypes, build from "printed" parts. No parts layout yet, no styrene testshot. Decals here are self-made.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Marco Scheloske said:


> hm?
> 
> Just to make one thing clear: Those are the VERY first prototypes, build from "printed" parts. No parts layout yet, no styrene testshot. Decals here are self-made.


they look excellent.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

razorwyre1 said:


> is it just me, or do those look suspiciously like the amt kits?


I have a Monogram P-51 model that looks suspiciously like the Fujimi P-51 model that looks suspiciously like the Hasegawa P-51 model that looks...


----------



## cireskul (Jul 16, 2006)

You all still want the 1/350 Enterprise kit? Are there are ever enough TOS Enterprise kits?
I must say these look pretty good.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

the D7 looks a little "chunky" to these old eyes. And they kept the AMT "Mistake" grills on the top of the main hull. I hope they nix those before the final tooling

Boxes sure are pretty, tho


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Thanks, Marco!

I certainly hope there is an appreciable and correct taper on the nacelles.

I think the Klingon looks a bit chunky, too, but, as pointed out, they are just prototypes.

I hope the Klingon goes with the standard look of the screen used prop vs. the slight variations (though they are nice extra detailing) of the AMT prop used for the model kits.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> the D7 looks a little "chunky" to these old eyes. And they kept the AMT "Mistake" grills on the top of the main hull. I hope they nix those before the final tooling
> 
> Boxes sure are pretty, tho


I thought that about the Klingon ship as well. Then I took a closer look at the neck, where it meets the command section. It blends in with the background color and makes it appear thicker. It looks better to me with that in mind!


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Thanks, Marco!
> 
> I certainly hope there is an appreciable and correct taper on the nacelles.


They are a bit smaller in diameter at the aft end, compared to the front end, so yes, there is a taper. Not good to see in the picture above, but I know that from another source.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Awesome, thanks for the pics Marco. Looks like the underside of the saucer on the E is somewhat flat, almost like the 33 incher. Beyond that, it looks great.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Thanks for sharing. It's going go need closer scrutiny later, but the taper of the nacelles looks good here so far. Certainly better than the cutaway AMT.

It's hard to make out for certain in this shot but the profile of the saucer underside looks odd in this pic. First glance it reminds me of the lost 33" Enterprise.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

I swear I'm not Seashark ;-). Simultaneous post


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The nacelle taper should be 18%, for those of you who want to _really _be picky.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

John P said:


> The nacelle taper should be 18%, for those of you who want to _really _be picky.


You must be thinking of another forum


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

I did not know anything about this release, what a cool surprise. Hope they are fairly accurate as I want them! No, never too many Enterprises.


----------



## robtrek (Sep 26, 2007)

I'm back!...umm yeah. Anyway, I couln't believe this anouncement. Makes me wonder if it is worth the effort I was putting in to accurise my 18" an 22" cutaway. 

I am looking forward to the Revell kits very much. If they are successful, I would love to see a refit in the same scale. That way, it's not a ridiculously huge model...or a silly small one. This seems the perfect shelf size while big enough to light up nicely. I can't wait!


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

razorwyre1 said:


> is it just me, or do those look suspiciously like the amt kits?


Difficult to tell for sure with these pictures, but they do appear similar. They are supposed to be new tooling however, so we will have to wait and see what the final product looks like. From these pictures, the prototypes look promising! :thumbsup:


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Is it just me or does the Enterprise look out of proportion ? The secondary hull looks too big and the saucer too small. Kind of like the animated Star Trek Enterprise. Perhaps its just the angle of the photo....


----------



## robtrek (Sep 26, 2007)

HabuHunter32 said:


> Is it just me or does the Enterprise look out of proportion ? The secondary hull looks too big and the saucer too small. Kind of like the animated Star Trek Enterprise. Perhaps its just the angle of the photo....


I see what you are saying, I thought the same thing when I first saw the pics. Could be the angle, but I hope wether it be a prototype issue or whatever, that they get it right for the production. I also felt the primary hull edges didn't have the right angle, not being "slanted" enough.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

razorwyre1 said:


> is it just me, or do those look suspiciously like the amt kits?





John P said:


> I have a Monogram P-51 model that looks suspiciously like the Fujimi P-51 model that looks suspiciously like the Hasegawa P-51 model that looks...


LOL!

As has been posted about 3,000 times, this is new tooling. You can just about make out the "dent" along the side of the secondary hull which means it's not based on the old AMT kit. Also, the B/C deck seems to dip down a bit more in back and is more rounded than the old kit.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

HabuHunter32 said:


> Is it just me or does the Enterprise look out of proportion ? The secondary hull looks too big and the saucer too small. Kind of like the animated Star Trek Enterprise. Perhaps its just the angle of the photo....


There are very few angles that the Enterprise looks good from. That is why it got trashed in ST:III, ILM wanted a new design they could photgraph from more angles. They didn't count on fan loyalty!! Plus, the background in the photo plays tricks on your eyes. The white stripe makes it appear as though the hull continues forward, when it really doesn't! The gray in the wall also blends with the shadow areas, making it difficult to see as well!


----------



## robtrek (Sep 26, 2007)

I disagree about the only a few angles that the Enterprise looks good. I find that almost any ship/vehicle, wether real or fiction has good and bad angles. Some more than others mind you, but I feel the OS Enterprise to have more than a few good angles. Also, a large part of the reason that the Refit was not liked by ILM is that it was very heavy and very difficult to move around on the mount. This drove them crazy as compared to there light weight armatures & lighting setup they created for the Reliant. Another reason, which was not objective, was that the guys in charge were quoted as just plain hating Trek period, having contempt for it. I remember reading an interview an the ILM supervisor said something to the effect of "hating the show an the ship and couln't wait to destroy it". This was an interview taken on the production of ST:III. A well. Personally, I like Star Wars and Trek and many others(Like BSG...but I am biased I supose). They are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

robtrek said:


> I disagree about the only a few angles that the Enterprise looks good. I find that almost any ship/vehicle, wether real or fiction has good and bad angles. Some more than others mind you, but I feel the OS Enterprise to have more than a few good angles. Also, a large part of the reason that the Refit was not liked by ILM is that it was very heavy and very difficult to move around on the mount. This drove them crazy as compared to there light weight armatures & lighting setup they created for the Reliant. Another reason, which was not objective, was that the guys in charge were quoted as just plain hating Trek period, having contempt for it. I remember reading an interview an the ILM supervisor said something to the effect of "hating the show an the ship and couln't wait to destroy it". This was an interview taken on the production of ST:III. A well. Personally, I like Star Wars and Trek and many others(Like BSG...but I am biased I supose). They are not mutually exclusive.


OK, that is what you have heard and read, but I was told what I wrote by Majel Barrett herself in 1985 when Star Trek IV was ramping up. She also went on to say that the Excelsior was to be the new Enterprise. Solely designed for ST III for that purpose in IV. Gene still had some say in things, that combined with fan dislike for the Excelsior design brought back the re-fit. Also, even the effects guys in the '60's had a hard time finding a flattering angle. Whatever, don't want to rock the boat.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'll be keeping an eye on these because while still prototypes they don't look bad.


----------



## robtrek (Sep 26, 2007)

RSN said:


> OK, that is what you have heard and read, but I was told what I wrote by Majel Barrett herself in 1985 when Star Trek IV was ramping up. She also went on to say that the Excelsior was to be the new Enterprise. Solely designed for ST III for that purpose in IV. Gene still had some say in things, that combined with fan dislike for the Excelsior design brought back the re-fit. Also, even the effects guys in the '60's had a hard time finding a flattering angle. Whatever, don't want to rock the boat.


Oh I was only speaking sujectively about wether the Enterprise has many flatering angles. Having worked with her in CG on "Enterprise", I had a lot of fun , but I probably like her more than some. However, it was a bit diffcult to light as compared to other more compact shapes, but then in CG you can fake a lot. Also, I know about the Excelsior being the new ship and all, but the fans had there way. In some ways, I would have prefered a new ship, especially as I dislike the -A, -B.... sillyness bringing back the refit started. On the up side, I love the Refit, so it was nice to see her for a few more films.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

robtrek said:


> Oh I was only speaking sujectively about wether the Enterprise has many flatering angles. Having worked with her in CG on "Enterprise", I had a lot of fun , but I probably like her more than some. However, it was a bit diffcult to light as compared to other more compact shapes, but then in CG you can fake a lot. Also, I know about the Excelsior being the new ship and all, but the fans had there way. In some ways, I would have prefered a new ship, especially as I dislike the -A, -B.... sillyness bringing back the refit started. On the up side, I love the Refit, so it was nice to see her for a few more films.


For sure, the refit was the best to me, just a half notch above the original. The flat engines make her look more graceful than the round ones. I have never really cared for any of the other ship designs, with the exception of the Reliant and Grissom.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

robtrek said:


> Personally, I like Star Wars and Trek and many others (Like BSG...but I am biased I supose). They are not mutually exclusive.


A-MEN!!! I've never understood the "one or the other" mentality that some fans have when it comes to all of the various sci-fi franchises, and the _Star Trek_/_Star Wars_ debates in particular. At any given moment I might _prefer_ one over the other, but I still love them both. And _BSG_. And _Lost In Space_. And _Space: 1999_. And _Firefly_. And...well, you get the idea.

Back to the topic, even if the Revell Germany kits are only marginally more accurate than the classic AMT kits I'll still probably get them as long as they've improved the way the parts fit together (i.e., smaller/fewer gaps). With any luck, they'll engineer the nacelle struts on the Enterprise so that this kit won't eventually be a victim of the dreaded "nacelle droop".


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Given the choice I'd always opt for the more accurate kit even if it's only moderately more accurate.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

You know, I've always thought that the viewer was SUPPOSED to not like the Excelsior for the very reason that it WASN'T the familiar Enterprise design.

It was an over stuffed, transwarped, bloated, "easy to over take the plumbing" example of a ship that was meant to represent all of what Starfleet was becoming (Something that Kirk and the rest of "our" heroes were supposed to feel out of place with )

Which is why there is such an emotional connection when the new Enterprise is revealed at the end of IV. It's a return and a validation of Kirk's actions by Starfleet.

My two cents, anyway


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> You know, I've always thought that the viewer was SUPPOSED to not like the Excelsior for the very reason that it WASN'T the familiar Enterprise design.


Know what? I always liked the Excelsior, and in my eyes it was a good and logical advanced version of the Enterprise refit...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I eventually came to like the Excelsior, but if they introduced it because they couldn't find flattering angles for the Enterprise, they blew it. The XL looked horrible from _most _angles.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

On the angle thing, the ship was actually designed so that there were many angles it could be shot from that made it look interesting on a small 4:3 television screen.

With very little familiarity with the ship, it's easy to tell which direction it's going unlike the problem they had with the sideways oval of the 1701D.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Know what? I always liked the Excelsior, and in my eyes it was a good and logical advanced version of the Enterprise refit...


It was the opposite for me, Marco. IMHO, the Excelsior's design was VERY sleek, but It never read as fully thought out to me. They needed to give the wee lass some more TLC in the design phase, I think.

• You have a non-sealed shuttlebay on the aft end of the 'surfboard' part of the secondary hull, which was serviced by shuttlebay doors that would NEVER be able to open (due to the EXTREME bending to match the rear 'point' of the 'surfboard'.)

• You have the truncated cargo bay area open to space in the bottom of the lower hull, with no (visible, at least) flat floor, to land workbees & such.

• AFAIK, there were no docking ports to give a sense of how much bigger she was over the Refit.

• Proportion-wise, the long, skinny engines needed to be either wider or shorter, the impulse deck on the saucer was too big with too small engine openings, and the NavDef was too small in the lower hull.

On the POSITIVE side, at least the Excelsior WASN'T beaten with the stylistic 'ugly stick' like the Enterprise-B was...(_*THAT* thing fell out of the ugly tree and hit EVERY branch on the way to the ground! Brrrr! 'Water wings' on the secondary hull, miniscule nav def, two MORE GARGANTUAN impulse engines on the saucer, the fronts of the engines wearing 'Roman Helmets'..._)

I'm going to see if I can remove ANY of these 'faults' on the Excelsior kit I have at home.

Be well, guys, & keep building!
Greg

P.S.: Revell's Gray Lady is looking promising...and a sane scale, as well!


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

I can't wait for the revell kits.

Also on a side note: The excelsior class did Eventually become an Enterprise: You know her as the Enterprise B.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Know what? I always liked the Excelsior, and in my eyes it was a good and logical advanced version of the Enterprise refit...


The Excelsior has it's own, definitive look but I've always thought it was very cool in its own way. The open shuttlebay is just "out there" enough when compared to other starships to make it seem a little more futuristic because we can't understand exactly how it's supposed to work.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

All of these designs are interesting; I see no reason to bash any of them. If the TOS Enterprise didn't have any good angles I doubt people would be screaming bloody murder for an expensive 1/350 kit of it after all these years. 

I bought the new R2 Enterprise B kit and from what I can see the improved parts will work with the old Excelsior kit just fine. I've got one unbuilt so I'm just going to incorporate them into that...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

jbond said:


> All of these designs are interesting; I see no reason to bash any of them. If the TOS Enterprise didn't have any good angles I doubt people would be screaming bloody murder for an expensive 1/350 kit of it after all these years.
> 
> I bought the new R2 Enterprise B kit and from what I can see the improved parts will work with the old Excelsior kit just fine. I've got one unbuilt so I'm just going to incorporate them into that...


Well I, for one, wasn't "bashing" when I first made the, accurate, comment about the Enterprise not photographing well from certain angles. I was pointing out why some thought the photo of the prototype looked odd! Period!! Any effects person who has ever tried to shoot it has said the same thing, that doesn't mean I think it is a bad design, heck if you catch Cindy Crawford from the wrong angle she looks bad!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

RSN said:


> . . . heck if you catch Cindy Crawford from the wrong angle she looks bad!


No, she doesn't.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> No, she doesn't.


Well, I had to pick someone!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Whilst it's not my favourite starship the Enterprise looks great on screen from all angles as far as I can see. 

Anyway, on to the Revell kit it looks nice but I hope the nacelles and any other lights are in clear plastic too (or coloured clear plastic where need be, like the nacelles).


----------



## robtrek (Sep 26, 2007)

RSN said:


> Well I, for one, wasn't "bashing" when I first made the, accurate, comment about the Enterprise not photographing well from certain angles. I was pointing out why some thought the photo of the prototype looked odd! Period!! Any effects person who has ever tried to shoot it has said the same thing, that doesn't mean I think it is a bad design, heck if you catch Cindy Crawford from the wrong angle she looks bad!


Well, I have to disagree with one thing here: the word "Accurate". Filming a shot, and I have LOTS of experience here with shooting the Trek ships, is majority subjective. The fact that Majel or other Dir of Photography couldn't or did not like cerain angles was a subjective choice, a personal opinion on there part of what looks good and what does not. It's not like it's a right or wrong answer as in 2+2=4. I for one, felt when I was playing and setting her up for shots on Enterprise (my version was the Defiant, but same design) I felt she looked great from many angles and did not perceive this issue. ( I had more problems with the flat and low texture surface, but that's another issue related partly to CG models). That being said, my take is still, an opinion. No more "right" than the other peoples. And, frankly, with so many people as pointed out clamoring for that ship in model form, she just can't be that awkward. I mean, I don't hear this press over the "Slave One" from SW. Designs are art and every person will react differently to a certain shape, angle, etc. Again, personal opinion. Even a general consensus on a shape is subjective. My two cents for what it is worth...


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

robtrek said:


> Well, I have to disagree with one thing here: the word "Accurate". Filming a shot, and I have LOTS of experience here with shooting the Trek ships, is majority subjective. The fact that Majel or other Dir of Photography couldn't or did not like cerain angles was a subjective choice, a personal opinion on there part of what looks good and what does not. It's not like it's a right or wrong answer as in 2+2=4. I for one, felt when I was playing and setting her up for shots on Enterprise (my version was the Defiant, but same design) I felt she looked great from many angles and did not perceive this issue. ( I had more problems with the flat and low texture surface, but that's another issue related partly to CG models). That being said, my take is still, an opinion. No more "right" than the other peoples. And, frankly, with so many people as pointed out clamoring for that ship in model form, she just can't be that awkward. I mean, I don't hear this press over the "Slave One" from SW. Designs are art and every person will react differently to a certain shape, angle, etc. Again, personal opinion. Even a general consensus on a shape is subjective. My two cents for what it is worth...


I was referring to the people who filmed an actual model that required great care to get the depth of field right, not a CG model. I trust their assessment as to the "filmability" (Is that a word?) of the 11 foot model, that is all!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Marco Scheloske said:


> hm?


Sorry, I should have quoted the earlier post to which I was referring. I meant "they look new, since I see a taper on the nacelles, unlike the old AMT kit which had no taper".


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

If robtrek worked on Enterprise creating shots of the Defiant in "In A Mirror, Darkly" as I believe he states, he's not a fan, but a professional that worked on the show.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Those are completely new toolings, but the size make them look familiar. They are only a tad larger than the AMT ones.


Clearly you've seen more of these than any of us. What's your take on them so far?


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

well if the new toolings are more accurate, then i as few words as i can muster: BRING 'EM ON! (im going to bet that nearly 50 years of the AMT/PL kits might have given revell some clues as to how not to engineer the kit with regard to nacelle alignment/droop, etc..)

as to the excelsior, i always thought it was designed to look like the proverbial camel, as a 'horse designed by committee". i always considered it bulky and ungainly in relation to the original TOS/refit designs.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

razorwyre1 said:


> i always considered it bulky and ungainly in relation to the original TOS/refit designs.


In my eyes it was sleek, graceful and powerful looking. A vessel to be proud of.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I was at first put off by the Excelsior design but have come to really like it over the years. Until the Enterprise E appeared, nothing conveyed sleekness and speed quite as well as the Excelsior in my mind.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> I was at first put off by the Excelsior design but have come to really like it over the years. Unitl the Enterprise E appeared, nothing conveyed sleekness and speed quite as well as the Excelsior in my mind.


Good point!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

I think the old AMT kit did have some nacelle taper....just not quite enough.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I think the first AMT kit did not have a taper, After the molds were redone then It had a small taper. I think Cult has a good article on this but it's been a while since I read it.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

mach7 said:


> I think the first AMT kit did not have a taper, After the molds were redone then It had a small taper. I think Cult has a good article on this but it's been a while since I read it.


The small box kit had a slight taper to the nacelles. I found that out when I built the motors for the nacelles in my Enterprise.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

mach7 said:


> I think the first AMT kit did not have a taper, After the molds were redone then It had a small taper. I think Cult has a good article on this but it's been a while since I read it.


I believe it was when AMT butchered the kit, as far as the deflector dish assembly goes, in the mid-'70's. They split the "arms", that held the forward part of the secondary hull, in half and they also separated the three "teeth' from forward caps of the engine. Also gone were the small "fingers" on the 4 "wings" on the rear of the nacelles. (I am sure there is "technobabble" for them, but I am "old school"!) The deflector was also changed, for the worse and the waaay too small balls on the engine end caps. The upside to the redesign of the kit was the engine mounts and the slight taper. Gee, thanks AMT for making sooooo much more to correct!!


----------



## robtrek (Sep 26, 2007)

RSN said:


> I believe it was when AMT butchered the kit, as far as the deflector dish assembly goes, in the mid-'70's. They split the "arms", that held the forward part of the secondary hull, in half and they also separated the three "teeth' from forward caps of the engine. Also gone were the small "fingers" on the 4 "wings" on the rear of the nacelles. (I am sure there is "technobabble" for them, but I am "old school"!) The deflector was also changed, for the worse and the waaay too small balls on the engine end caps. The upside to the redesign of the kit was the engine mounts and the slight taper. Gee, thanks AMT for making sooooo much more to correct!!


Agreed! Ah well...


----------

