# Does AMT have plans to re-release ST kits, too?



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

Any idea if AMT is considering re-releasing some of thier kits as well as the new Star wars kits?

If so, they might want to consider re-tooling their molds on a few of them.


----------



## DinoMike (Jan 1, 1970)

Babaganoosh said:


> Any idea if AMT is considering re-releasing some of thier kits as well as the new Star wars kits?
> 
> If so, they might want to consider re-tooling their molds on a few of them.


 From past examples on RC/Ertl's reissues, their philosophy is "If the mold works, don't retool it!" We'd get the same inaccurate, poorly fitting kits as before. I'd rather they just scrap those molds & let Tom Sasser do his thing with new masters.


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

I'd still like one of each...for nostalgia.

I'm amazed at how fast AMT re-popped the Star Wars kits. Too bad I just don't care about the subject.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Dave Metzner said he "wouldn't be surprised" if RC2 rereleased some Trek kits. 

But they almost certainly don't care enough to put any extra money into it beyond the cost of the molding and boxing. Maximum return for minimum investment seems to be their creedo.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

John P said:


> Dave Metzner said he "wouldn't be surprised" if RC2 rereleased some Trek kits.
> 
> But they almost certainly don't care enough to put any extra money into it beyond the cost of the molding and boxing. Maximum return for minimum investment seems to be their creedo.


Welcome to the US corporate mantra from here on out- Quality be damned.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

Considering that "quality" and "AMT" are an oxymoron, I'm not too worried about it. I've never had an AMT kit that fit right or wasn't warped in some fashion.


----------



## jtwaclawski (Aug 7, 1999)

To you guys who bash AMT,
You know the Polar Lights kits aren't that impressive either. Especially if you have seen a Bandai Gundam or anything by Tamyia. They have their mistakes and a LOT of the detail, while there, is soft and not crisp on what's been released so far. Plus they have fit problems as well. If I wanted to, I could sit down and make a decent sized list of flaws on each kit they have released so far. But I don't because I'm just happy to have kits that I can purchase and build realitivly cheap. 
Near the end AMT/Ertl started releasing better fitting and more accurate kits. All the complaining makes me wonder if you guys are Modelers, or just Kit Assemblers as Merriman suggests.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

I would be thrilled to see most of the AMT original series models reissued for Star Trek's 40th anniversary. I don't know about hobby stores others here frequent, but I have noticed over the years that the Sci-Fi and horror related model section continues to shrink every year. Would love to see the selection 'beefed-up' with some of these classic old Trek kit reissues. 

What would be really cool in my humble opinion would be to have the AMT TOS Enterprise, Klingon BC, Romulan BOP, Galileo shuttle, K-7 Space Station, Mr. Spock w/ snakes, and Exploration Set kits reissued with the original box graphics. 

Oh well, I can dream.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

B/C/E 1/2500 set!
clear Ent-C/Yamaguchi! (with Excalibur decals, too)
Ent-E!
fiber-optic Ent-D!
fiber-optic DS9!

Gimme, gimme, gimme!  

Ok...immature joking aside, I'd love to see those kits re-released. All of them were decent in terms of accuracy, with the worst being the Ent-D...but I've heard that mold is in bad shape anyway...might as well fix it if they're going to re-release that kit.

One new set for that list...a 1/2500 four-ship set - Reliant, Defiant, Voyager, NX-01.


----------



## DL Matthys (May 8, 2004)

jtwaclawski said:


> To you guys who bash AMT,
> ... All the complaining makes me wonder if you guys are Modelers, or just Kit Assemblers as Merriman suggests.


I wonder as well, Jeff.
I find that to be an accurate assumption. All talk and no hobby. Just BB-itch and not fix. :tongue: 
The the folks in Dyersville Iowa still make great Farm toys.


DL Matthys


----------



## B.Wildered (Apr 25, 2004)

Ever since the first model was ever built, it has been incumbent on the modeler as an artist to bring quality to his work. I look at even the cheesiest AMT kits as a good starting point for a model. What the modeler/artist really needs, in my opinion, is the general shape, i.e., that which is hard to scratchbuild. From there he can put in as much or as little work as he wants. Given my enthusiasm for Sci-Fi as a subject, I will just about take what I can get, as far as kit quality.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

My "special Talent" is that I can bitch and assemble kits!
http://groups.msn.com/AURORAMODELS/starshipsetc.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=894


----------



## Xavadis (Jan 10, 2004)

Seeing the Ertl Trek kits being re-released would be great, but with the current popularity of Trek, or should I say UNpopularity of it in the mass entertainment audience (Enterprise cancelled, Nemesis sales) I figured we would not see Ertl kits resurface till some new Trek poppped up, much like the new/old Ertl Star Wars kits taking advantage of the Episode III hype. I would really like to see the Enterprise-C/Yamaguchi kit re-released, as well as the Excelsior/E-C, and of course the E-E, just to make those Ebay sellers mad.


----------



## Sword of Whedon (Jul 5, 2004)

> You know the Polar Lights kits aren't that impressive either. Especially if you have seen a Bandai Gundam or anything by Tamyia


Yeah, I've got plenty of Gundams. They fit really well.

The difference I'm seeing here with Polar Lights is that the kits are being made to the specs I want
by someone who cares.

I also have about $300 in never-finished or fallen-apart AMT kits because they don't fit properly or were ludicrously warped, so forgive me if I hate their stuff with a passion.


----------



## jtwaclawski (Aug 7, 1999)

I have seen the fit problems with the AMT kits. I'm not denying that. But I have also seen and heard of fit problems with the PL kits as well.

TOS Enterprise - look how the nacelle end caps fit to the rear of the nacelles. 
Klingon - Need I say more than Boom. I haven't worked on a NX yet but I have heard about fit problems with that as well. Need I go on?

My point is that I have NEVER come across a ST kit that didn't need some correction in some way. I'm not faulting the designer here. Just remember that there are more than just their hands in the cookie jar. The PL kits may be more accurate than the Ertl ones, but they are not without their faults.

PLus it says a lot when you can take a poor kit and make a nice kit of of it, they when you do the same with a nice kit.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

jtwaclawski said:


> Just remember that there are more than just their hands in the cookie jar.


 I think that's a good way to put it. Tom was mortified by the Klingon boom problem. He drew the plans correctly, but somehow between his plans and the final molds cut in China, something went horribly wrong.

 But no model company, big or small, _always _makes perfectly accurate models with no fit problems. I've seen Revell and Monogram kits with monster gaps and parts that just don't fit like they're supposed to. Don't even get me started on Trumpeter and Italeri.


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

First of all,if a kit lacks reasonnable details,it's the manufacturer's fault because no matter how you try to put it through their thick skulls that adults build these kits as well as kids,they still don't listen.A lot of the time ERTL did not bother making a kit that was more accurate was because they don't take seriously the manufacturing of SCI-FI kits.According to them the kids should be satisfied with the details.I'm not talking about details that would drive the price through the roof,but a simple extra effort by the staff and sculptors to do a better job.As far as warped pieces and less crisp details are concerned,maybe it's because they take the kits out of the molds too fast,and,or,use plastics that are too soft in nature to start with in the first place.I wonder why TAMIYA'S kits are not warped or have crisper details,except for the fact that the molds themselves have extra well detailed pattern in them.Perhaps the plastic has a longer stay in the mold and a harder faster cooling plastic as well,if such is the case,are the reason they come out looking so fine.


----------



## B.Wildered (Apr 25, 2004)

I just want to see the the old Star Trek kits re-released, so that I can make my own attempt to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. 

For example: I've been working with the Klingon Cruiser kit from Undiscovered Country. I felt the detail was not as complex as I wanted, so I glued bits of photoetch leftover from other projects right to the bare plastic. I then broke out my trusty MicroMark(tm) scriber and made some of the lines crisper. Once I put on the base color, it pulled together nicely. I'm almost done with it, and when I am I will post photos at starshipmodeler.com.


----------



## Nighthawk (Oct 13, 2004)

I could use another Reliant and even the Excelsior or Enterprise-B. Oh sure, AMT/Ertl screwed up a number of kits, but I don't think they did a bad job on the Reliant model. The one I built at the spry wee age of eleven or so didn't quite... um... come out very well...


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

It would be nice to see available again, although I still see the Reliant on the shelves. The E-C was nicely done although hard to come by. I never really cared for the B. Excelsior had a better overall look than the B. 

One of the greatest innaccuracies to the Reliant was that the saucer is overall too thin, I think by an eight of an inch or so. It'll look a hundred times better if you just increase the thickness. I think that was one of the greatest heart-break for me. It is one of my favorite ships and I had hoped that either PL or Bandai would get to issueing one in 1:850 or 1:1000. Looks like that won't happen, eh?


----------



## Nighthawk (Oct 13, 2004)

I personally disagree with you on the saucer thickness... if its too thin, maybe it's off by a 16th of an inch at most, but that's me personally. Being young and fairly inexperienced, I could be wrong, lol.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I would like to see all the Trek kits re-issued.
I'm a STAR TREK fan, as well as a model builder, so
I like having all the ships. Any problems with the kit
are just part of the territory of model building. After
all, if they were perfect, everyone would be building them!
(Wait... that would be a good thing. :freak: )

I'm happy to have them! :thumbsup:


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

^^^ Yeah, what he said !!! :thumbsup:


----------



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

xsavoie said:


> First of all,if a kit lacks reasonnable details,it's the manufacturer's fault because no matter how you try to put it through their thick skulls that adults build these kits as well as kids,they still don't listen.A lot of the time ERTL did not bother making a kit that was more accurate was because they don't take seriously the manufacturing of SCI-FI kits.According to them the kids should be satisfied with the details.I'm not talking about details that would drive the price through the roof,but a simple extra effort by the staff and sculptors to do a better job.As far as warped pieces and less crisp details are concerned,maybe it's because they take the kits out of the molds too fast,and,or,use plastics that are too soft in nature to start with in the first place.I wonder why TAMIYA'S kits are not warped or have crisper details,except for the fact that the molds themselves have extra well detailed pattern in them.Perhaps the plastic has a longer stay in the mold and a harder faster cooling plastic as well,if such is the case,are the reason they come out looking so fine.


I could see getting some details of the TOS E wrong the first time, but why not correct it once the original molds wore out???

It always amazed me that AMT screwed up basic parts like the A/B saucer deck shape, Yet the person who made the vacuformed version for the flying rocket model could get it near perfect(at least as perfect that could be seen in vacuform)????


----------



## Raventree (Apr 28, 2005)

Hmm...How about a "Lost" Matt Jefferies Design as well..
The Leif Ericsson Galactic Cruiser.. No Paramount involvement..and it's kind of Canon..
probably quite cheap to make as well..it was re-released during the 70s as an Interplanetary UFO..Glow in the Dark version...

comments?


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

Sparky said:


> ...What would be really cool in my humble opinion would be to have the AMT TOS Enterprise, Klingon BC, Romulan BOP, Galileo shuttle, K-7 Space Station, Mr. Spock w/ snakes, and Exploration Set kits reissued with the original box graphics.
> Oh well, I can dream.


Nice...While we're at it...howzabout re-releasing the Vulcan Shuttle/warp sled from ST:TMP? I had that years ago...wonder what I did with it?


----------



## ost15jr (Apr 4, 2002)

You've really gotta WAAAANNA bitch and complain to leave a forum you obviously looooooove (PL) and come to one where the subject is something you make quite clear that you HAAAATE! (AMT):devil: 

In the words of Don Henley: "Get over it"

I've been building AMT kits for the past 30 odd years and think they're just fine. I admit on the whole I prefer other companies for subject matter and detail (Monogram was my company of choice as a kid, but they're absorbed now too) but I wouldn't say AMT is crap by any means. I have number of AMT buildups I'm very happy with and a number sitting in my basement waiting to be opened. (along with a number of Revell, Monogram, Polar Lights, Tamiya kits)
:dude:


----------



## SGluedMyFingers (May 23, 2005)

Maybe this will calm you guys down:

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/news.cfm

Note: AMT RE-ISSUING TREK KITS
This was the topic of this thread, right?


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

I am ok with the AMT kits, in fact, I like them! ALL sci-fi kits needs a little puttyin here and there. Part and parcel of building kits. If I can accurize it myself, better still and if a part is warp, I just discovered DML who produces some fantastic looking detail parts.

I say, screw it, if AMT re-release all the ST kits. I will buy them all x 2! Okie, I will get those 4 reissued kits. Maybe if the sale is high enough, it can convince them to re-release more.


----------



## scifiguy (Oct 19, 1999)

Re-issues are better than no trek kits at all. I would hate to have no Star Trek kits on the shelves.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I agree.

I think that reissues are great, especially for those who may have missed out on obtaining these kits when they were originally marketed.

However, I do hope that there is a plan to continue with the ST line of new (quality) kits to go along with the reissued ones.


----------



## H.Erickson (Sep 1, 2005)

I for one am also greatful for the AMT kits as they do make great foundations (and for providing parts for scratchbuilds), and as Don and Jeff stated: That's modeling. I was however really looking forward to a new ST line from Polar Lights. The reason being is that I am ridiculously anal about detail and quality with my projects (I could possibly need help) and I have a lot of various projects at various stages of completion, some having been in the works for a few years now. A more accurate easier to build project (such as a PL kit) would allow more practice actually getting to paint and detail something and be able to enjoy more completed projects.
For example:see photos, I wouldn't have to go to such great lengths with one of Tom's kits.


----------



## tilk (Jan 17, 2005)

*5th November*

I have heard that ERTL will be re-releasing thier BOP model at the end of the year. I only have 23 left, so it is a good thing. I can stock up.


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

I find the ERTL kits are good for bashing,


I'd really like to see the larger kits come out, especially the 22 ToS Ent.

Not much use for the smaller kits as there's now a wealth of same size toys and models out there that are more accurate and with a wider range of classes - (although I'm looking forward to the 1701E in the 2 peice set!)

Mike


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For anyone else that gets Fine Scale Modeler's email stuff, they've got a survey going around asking folks what new model kit subjects they'd most like to see, with a handy-dandy write-in section at the bottom.

Me, I put in a 1/350 TOS Enterprise, but I don't want to be accused of lobbying...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=121080


http://apps.kalmbach.com/survey/default.aspx?sid=281&auth=lsjh9rqiuj


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Dont you people relize that paert of ths hobby is to deal with inacurisies of fit @ detailing? Yes the AMT ST kits have A lot of inacurisies especialy the 1701 refit.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

It might be easier to forgive the inaccuracies if they were at least in a consistent scale - like the little 1/2500 kits.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> Dont you people relize that paert of ths hobby is to deal with inacurisies of fit @ detailing? Yes the AMT ST kits have A lot of inacurisies especialy the 1701 refit.


That's a rationalization. Correcting little flaws is not a problem, it's a part of the game.

But I shouldn't have to practically rebuild the bloody thing from scratch to get something halfway accurate.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Captain April said:


> That's a rationalization. Correcting little flaws is not a problem, it's a part of the game.
> 
> But I shouldn't have to practically rebuild the bloody thing from scratch to get something halfway accurate.


Laddy, granted the AMT refit has got to be about the worst tek tit AMT has ever done but don't ye think yer exsaturating some? :wave:


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

^ yeah, it wasn't that bad considering the era it was produced. But...by far the worst flaw of the the thing was the engraved panel lines to simulate the aztec paint scheme.

It made the ship look as if it were made of bricks. People with skill, time and talent DID make that kit look pretty good, considering. It's all in how much you want out of it.

This hobby is like most other things in life; you get out of it only what you put in. If one is not willing to go the personal distance to make lemonade out of 'lemons', then it is that person's own fault, lack of patience, lack of skill...or whatever.

Are some kits crappy? No doubt. But unless they are truly abyssmal and less effort and better results can be had when building from scratch, then I tend to think of nit-picking as just a cover for those lacks I mentioned above.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Has anyone taken a real close look at the paneling on the AMT refit? At first look they appear to be random which they are for the most part, but if you take a very close look there not that randomrimary hull top at the front the first outer ring the extra engraving that ERTL added is the same pattern 2 sections over, but its off center just enough to look random. Its like that all over the primary hull top and bottom! And if you take the left half of both pylons and compare them to each other you'l see the lines are identical, same with the other 2 piece of the pylon. best I can tell the rest of the engraving is random.


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

I like the panels on the AMT kit, looks busy! :hat: 

B


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Boxster said:


> I like the panels on the AMT kit, looks busy! :hat:
> 
> B


Busy?


----------



## fokkerpilot (Jul 22, 2002)

tilk said:


> I have heard that ERTL will be re-releasing thier BOP model at the end of the year. I only have 23 left, so it is a good thing. I can stock up.


:lol: How true. You'd think they would re-release the E-C and the E-E. Just what everyone needs, another Bird of Prey. Their marketing research department must be full of former airline executives.


----------

