# Update on Galileo from Round 2



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Well, for those of you waiting with baited breath, you'll be waiting longer. A LOT longer. Sounds like there's been no progress made on the kit in many months and it has been shelved for the foreseeable future. I'm not at all surprised as I really don't see a big enough demand for the kit to justify the expense a company of R2's size would have to put into such a kit. Head over to R2s blog to read all about it. Also, I give huge kudos to R2 for being so transparent about their decision and the reason behind it! The ultimate decision sucks, but it's easy to understand how and why they did it.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

GSaum said:


> Well, for those of you waiting with baited breath, you'll be waiting longer. A LOT longer. Sounds like there's been no progress made on the kit in many months and it has been shelved for the foreseeable future. I'm not at all surprised as I really don't see a big enough demand for the kit to justify the expense a company of R2's size would have to put into such a kit. Head over to R2s blog to read all about it. Also, I give huge kudos to R2 for being so transparent about their decision and the reason behind it! The ultimate decision sucks, but it's easy to understand how and why they did it.


Well, that does just suck! And I don't understand the reason, when you consider the popularity of the 1:350 Enterprise and the fact that there isn't and has never been any other decent kit of the Galileo. Meanwhile they keep making duplicate kits of varying scales of other ST ships.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Just glad to hear the desire to produce the kit one day is still there. I'm thrilled for now with the Eagle and the upcoming revised Excelsior. Besides, if you get everything you desire at one time what's left to dream about?


----------



## [EAGLE] (Sep 8, 2012)

Whatever. A 1/32 scale Shuttlecraft kit would sell like Lobster, just like it did when AMT released their kit mid 70's. What a drag.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

It's great that Round 2 was honest regarding their decision and reason for not going ahead with the Galileo right now. Round 2 does give us some excellent models(i.e. - 1/350 TOS Enterprise, 22" Eagle, 1/1000 Reliant, Batmobile as well as many others...), so we have to understand when a decision like this is made. I'm grateful for all of these treats they produce.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

This makes me wonder what the next 'big' Trek project might be now. They should be doing something special for the Anniversary, ideally TOS. Repops with enhancements and small prepaints are OK as filler, but after the TOS-E 1/350 did so well Round 2 should have something big planned...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Not surprised, but incredibly disappointed. 

You Round 2 apologists are certainly entitled to your opinion, but these clowns have tied up one of the most coveted properties in sci-fi model making -- STAR TREK -- and the result for the most part has been a lot of re-pops. What a waste. I mean, Moebius can bring a Lost in Space Derelict to market (?!), but R2 can't figure out how to sell a Galileo? Pathetic.

Not Jamie's fault, obviously. I feel sorry for the guy. His job is basically explaining why the company he works for is so lame.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

The only 'big' thing, TOS-wise, that makes sense would be a 1/350 Klingon D-7. And that, as deeply and lovingly desired as it is, is not likely to be that big a seller as the Enterprise. It's just the nature of things. 

I can't help but think one of the problems with the Galileo is 'breaking' the scale conflict, combined with the deep tool needed for the hull parts. Well, you beat the hull problem by doing as Bandai has done, you construct the hull from flat parts tied together by internal frames, but that means you can't have an accurate interior, and if you omit the interior people will raise a ruckus.

It's a failure loop and I can't fathom how to break out of it. 

I know we've had a ton of discussion about the scale, prop vs. plan vs. interior set, and there seems to be some discomfort in upsizing the shuttle to accommodate the stage interior set in some quarters. It's hard to fight the inertia of "but this is what I see on T.V.!" (see also Jupiter II).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> Not surprised, but incredibly disappointed.
> 
> You Round 2 apologists are certainly entitled to your opinion, but these clowns have tied up one of the most coveted properties in sci-fi model making -- STAR TREK -- and the result for the most part has been a lot of re-pops. What a waste. I mean, Moebius can bring a Lost in Space Derelict to market (?!), but R2 can't figure out how to sell a Galileo? Pathetic.
> 
> Not Jamie's fault, obviously. I feel sorry for the guy. His job is basically explaining why the company he works for is so lame.


Now, be cool. 'Apologist' seems pretty harsh in this case. I agree Moebius pretty much blew minds by whipping that Derelict out but they haven't been burning up the shelves with a flood of Irwin Allen Series product either. And here I feel safe calling them out for the long, long, long postponed 1/32 Chariot and Space Pod. 

And yes, the IA shows don't have the marketing power of Original Star Trek, so one has to have different expectations, I understand that.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The whole text, for those facebookless:



> I was actually going to make this a lead in to a longer Star Trek models post that also included an update on the U.S.S. Excelsior since I’ve received the first set of test shots. My point in doing that was to deliver positive news along with what will be a disappointment to some of you. Instead I’m just going to rip off the band-aid lay out the situation with the Galileo Shuttle. No forward progress is being made to engineer the kit. I doubt this will come as a huge shock to anyone. I hope my directness and openness on the subject is appreciated. It pains me more than anyone to make a statement like this.
> I won’t drop that bomb without giving some kind of reason. Basically it comes down to timing and the budgetary limits of a company our size that offers such a wide range of products that we do. Sci-fi model kits take up a relatively slim slice of the pie when considering our automotive and military kits, die cast cars in several scales (including the recently re-acquired Johnny Lightning brand) along with other endeavors. Priorities have to shift when opportunities arise and for now we aren’t in a place where we can commit to the kit. Sometime we can invest in something grand, and sometimes other lines get to do something else instead.
> You may ask why we’ve steered away from this one while producing others instead. That’s a fair question and this is where timing kind of comes into play. Initially, there was a bit of a delay in getting completed plans of the ship. Gary Kerr is our most trusted consultant on all things Star Trek, but when we first dug into the project, his plans were very preliminary and just captured the basic shape which we used for the basis of the shuttle in our 1:350 kit. By the time he turned them in, they consisted of over a hundred pages of crystal clear information. That took some time to do and while he was hard at work drawing up the plans we did other kits. Keep in mind it is easy to think about the old AMT kit and imagine that we could just do an improved version of that, but you know our reputation of doing a new kit right when we do one. At scale, the ship measures 11” long and over 7” wide. In that old kit one wall provided the interior and exterior. That won’t work for a kit that is intended to be accurate. it requires separate interior and exterior walls, floor, ceiling, roof, etc. So once parts get laid out on a tool, it essentially becomes the equivalent of two kits! I studied ways to cut back or compromise, but ultimately they would have seemed like a shortcut or cheat. The savings in doing so were negligible. One factor that actually worked in our favor was that when combined the 1:1000 Romulan BoP and U.S.S. Reliant were more manageable financially and they gave us more marketable kits at a lower price point. They also tied directly to other kits of the same scale. If we had done the Galileo those kits may never have come to market.
> Why do the Eagle and not the Galileo? That qualifies as a textbook “tough decision”. Ultimately we decided that the Eagle gave us the basis for three variations along with many potential add-ons and accessories while the Galileo could pretty much only exist as itself and therefore limited us with what could be done with the tooling. On top of that, sales on the Space:1999 license proved that the market was hungry for a new kit and that seems to indeed be the case. That isn’t to say one license won over the other. We still have a lot we can and want to do with the Star Trek license!
> So why say this now? I could have said something a few months ago, but I was knee deep in other matters. Plus, I still have hope and an idea to be able to do the kit sooner than later. I just wanted to clear the air with everyone that really wanted a straight answer on it. So the straight answer is we aren’t doing it right now, and they way things look we won’t be considering it for a while. I DO want the kit to happen and like I said, I have schemes and ideas, but it is time to move on for a bit with the intention to work back around to it. So what will we do? We’ll see. I’ll show you when I have something to show. Onward…


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Any way you slice it, this is very disappointing after all that exciting buildup, especially on the 50th anniversary. Hopes were very high. It's understandable to show just a tad of frustration, especially for those for whom ST TOS is the be all and end all, like yours truly! In fact, due to space restrictions that I have purposely imposed on myself, my only interest as far as ST models are TOS pieces. So, for me, this really blows, and I'm a more than a little peeved, largely because at 57 I don't have a lot of time to wait and to then enjoy a Galileo model. Even more frustrating is the bottom line that the Galileo, a Star Trek icon, lost out to the Eagle of S1999.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve H said:


> I agree Moebius pretty much blew minds by whipping that Derelict out but they haven't been burning up the shelves with a flood of Irwin Allen Series product either. And here I feel safe calling them out for the long, long, long postponed 1/32 Chariot and Space Pod.


If Moebius isn't burning up the shelves with IA kits it may be because they've already produced so many of them. 

Look, companies experience delays. I get that. I'm not talking about delays. I'm talking about owning the license to Star Trek and not doing anything with it. Can you IMAGINE the ST kits we'd have had by now if Moebius or Bandai or Tamiya or, yeah, even Revell, held the Trek rights? If Moebius had the rights we'd probably have a freakin' Lazarus saucer by now!

I'm not blind to the fact that we live is a Golden Age of awesome sci-fi kits. It's AMAZING (and it's about to get even more so). But the Trek thing is frustrating, and it doesn't look like the situation is going to improve any time soon. 

Ah, well, there's always the Randy Cooper kit.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Seeing as some people were hoping the Galileo would be out in time for the 50th anniversary this fall at least they didn't wait until the 'last minute' to announce the Galileo had been put on hold.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

Round 2 is a small company and Sci-Fi models are just a part of everything they do. TOS Star Trek is my favorite and I am so happy that the 1/350 TOS Enterprise was produced. Before that came out the closest we had to an accurate TOS Enterprise was the 11 inch 1/1000 kit. Yes it's a beautiful kit but at that small size there is only so many details you can put into it. All the other TOS Enterprise kits are inaccurate to say the least, even Revell's TOS Enterprise is not really accurate. The TOS Enterprise is a grail kit that came out over 40 years after the show aired, that's amazing. Even some of the re-issued Trek kits have some very nice updated parts and decals.

I'm also a fan of Space 1999 and you can't even compare the models that were available to the Trek kits out there. Before Round 2 produced the new 22" Eagle there were no accurate Eagle models in styrene. IMO the old 12" Eagle isn't as good as the AMT 18" TOS Enterprise kit so this new 22" Eagle is as big to Space 1999 fans as the 1/350 TOS Enterprise is to Star Trek fans.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

crowe-t said:


> I'm also a fan of Space 1999 and you can't even compare the models that were available to the Trek kits out there. Before Round 2 produced the new 22" Eagle there were no accurate Eagle models in styrene. IMO the old 12" Eagle isn't as good as the AMT 18" TOS Enterprise kit so this new 22" Eagle is as big to Space 1999 fans as the 1/350 TOS Enterprise is to Star Trek fans.


Well, there is no accurate model of the Galileo, either. And I don't buy that there are as many S1999 fans as Star Trek fans... not even close!


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Agreed, Carson. They blew it with this. They arent offering anything else Im interested in so I guess its back to garage kits to get what I want.I agree with everything youve said. Way to blow the 50th Rd2.


Carson Dyle said:


> Not surprised, but incredibly disappointed.
> 
> You Round 2 apologists are certainly entitled to your opinion, but these clowns have tied up one of the most coveted properties in sci-fi model making -- STAR TREK -- and the result for the most part has been a lot of re-pops. What a waste. I mean, Moebius can bring a Lost in Space Derelict to market (?!), but R2 can't figure out how to sell a Galileo? Pathetic.
> 
> Not Jamie's fault, obviously. I feel sorry for the guy. His job is basically explaining why the company he works for is so lame.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Exactly. Who puts the Eagle up against the Galileo on Star Treks 50th? Bad business. 


Proper2 said:


> Any way you slice it, this is very disappointing after all that exciting buildup, especially on the 50th anniversary. Hopes were very high. It's understandable to show just a tad of frustration, especially for those for whom ST TOS is the be all and end all, like yours truly! In fact, due to space restrictions that I have purposely imposed on myself, my only interest as far as ST models are TOS pieces. So, for me, this really blows, and I'm a more than a little peeved, largely because at 57 I don't have a lot of time to wait and to then enjoy a Galileo model. Even more frustrating is the bottom line that the Galileo, a Star Trek icon, lost out to the Eagle of S1999.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

onigiri said:


> Agreed, Carson. They blew it with this. They arent offering anything else Im interested in so I guess its back to garage kits to get what I want.I agree with everything youve said. Way to blow the 50th Rd2.


Yup, nothing else I'm interested in, ether. In fact, the only thing I looked forward to was the Galileo...


----------



## eimb1999 (Sep 8, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> Not surprised, but incredibly disappointed.
> 
> You Round 2 apologists are certainly entitled to your opinion, but these clowns have tied up one of the most coveted properties in sci-fi model making -- STAR TREK -- and the result for the most part has been a lot of re-pops. What a waste. I mean, Moebius can bring a Lost in Space Derelict to market (?!), but R2 can't figure out how to sell a Galileo? Pathetic.
> 
> Not Jamie's fault, obviously. I feel sorry for the guy. His job is basically explaining why the company he works for is so lame.


You know, you're perfectly free to start up your own business, compete for and purchase the license and produce the stuff yourself. Nobody is stopping you. If you think you can do a better job and turn a tidy profit (that's a necessity if you want to STAY in business), you'll not only satisfy yourself but others as well. So, have at it by all means.


----------



## eimb1999 (Sep 8, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> .... Can you IMAGINE the ST kits we'd have had by now if Moebius or Bandai or Tamiya or, yeah, even Revell, held the Trek rights?


Got news for you. Revell DOES have the Trek rights in Europe. Now, are you gonna tell me that the Revell Germany kit of the TOS E is in any way better than, or even comparable to, the wonderfulness that R2 did in 1/350th scale?

Are any of the Star Wars kits that Revell produced anywhere near as accurate as the 350 TOS or 22" Eagle kit that R2 have done?

Pu-lease.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Just a few thoughts:

Yes, it is disappointing, especially to the TOS Star Trek modelers like me, that the Galileo has been put on hold. But, I understand the reasoning as laid out by Jamie. Besides, I'd rather wait a few years, and get something that is as accurate as possible, then get something half-baked now, just to keep costs down. Some of you make it sound like the decision is some kind of conspiracy on R2's part!

While the Space 1999 my not be as popular overall as Star Trek, there was obviously a strong desire for an accurate Eagle (and Hawk, Ultraprobe, etc.), so R2's decision was a good one. My understanding is that their already on their 3rd production run, so they obviously made a good choice producing this kit, which is very accurate and long overdue.

Regarding R2's handling of the Star Trek license as opposed to what, assumedly, other companies would do with it, well, that's part a "glass-half-full/glass-half-empty" sort of argument and part speculation. Yes, I wish R2 did more new-tool, accurate Star Trek kits as opposed to reissues. But, there are many reissues that I looked forward to and bought and most have some form of update (decals, reworked parts, etc.), so you do get a BETTER kit then the original AMT issue from years ago. Also, all the cash R2 gets from selling older Trek kits goes towards making new-tool kits (at least theoretically). Overall, given that they have other kit lines (cars, military) and toy lines to attend to, R2 has done a pretty good job with what they've got.

As for other companies doing a better job with the license, who's to say? Let's look at two of the companies mentioned; Revell and Moebius. Revell (of Germany) already HAS the Star Trek license, in Europe, for several years. What have they done with it? Reissued the Voyager (old Monogram kit) and produced new-tool kits of the TOS Enterprise, Klingon Battlecruiser and the JJprise. Of the new-tool kits, only the JJprise is accurate. That kit came out in 2013 and there have been NO new Trek kits from Revell since. R2 has produced more new-tool kits and enhanced old-tool kits then Revell has, period.

As for Moebius, using the Lost in Space license (to show how many new-tool kits they produce of a certain license as opposed to R2) is not a good example. I'm willing to bet that the Irwin Allen license is far cheaper then the Star Trek license. If Moebius, which is a smaller company personal and money wise, had the Star Trek license, how many kits would they be able to produce (remember, Moebius does new-tool kits because THEY HAVE TO, they don't have a catalogue of old kits to chose from)? In other words, if R2, a bigger company doesn't have the cash to do a Trek kit, would Moebius, a smaller company have the cash? Maybe, maybe not, but I have my doubts. And, as someone mentioned we're still waiting for the 1/35 Chariot/Space Pod. How many years has it been since those kits were announced?

As far as "blowing it" by not releasing the Galileo on the 50th anniversary, if they could have, I'm sure they would have. Again, the Eagle kit seems to be doing very well for them and, as Jamie mentioned, that kit lends itself to 3 variations, add-ons and accessories, so it has the potental to be a big money-maker for them. They are in business to make money, right?

Look, I'm a big TOS Star Trek fan and was _really_ looking forward the to Galileo kit. There's other Trek kits I'd love to see too. But, I'm _also_ a fan of many different Sci-Fi shows/movies and want to see kits made from them also, like the Space 1999 Eagle. Sounds to me like R2 is trying to give us what we want. But, sometimes things don't aline and subjects get put on hold or cancelled. 

Right now, we're in the Golden Age of kits, when you consider not only the subject matter being produced, but the overall quality of the kits (and I'm talking all types of kits, not just Sci-Fi). Maybe a little more gratitude is in order.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

eimb1999 said:


> You know, you're perfectly free to start up your own business, compete for and purchase the license and produce the stuff yourself.


Love the logic here. A (potential) customer gets frustrated with a company’s poor track record producing one of the products it’s allegedly in business to produce, and the CUSTOMER is the jerk for not making the product himself. Brilliant.



eimb1999 said:


> are you gonna tell me that the Revell Germany kit of the TOS E is in any way better than, or even comparable to, the wonderfulness that R2 did in 1/350th scale?


I think we can all agree R2 has done a great job over the last few years producing two good sci-fi kits. Take a bow R2!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

spock62 said:


> Just a few thoughts:
> 
> While the Space 1999 my not be as popular overall as Star Trek, there was obviously a strong desire for an accurate Eagle (and Hawk, Ultraprobe, etc.), so R2's decision was a good one. My understanding is that their already on their 3rd production run, so they obviously made a good choice producing this kit, which is very accurate and long overdue.


This is not a complex issue. No, S1999 is not as popular as Star Trek. That's why the decision is puzzling to me. The only reason the decision to go w/ the Eagle instead of the Galileo was a good one for R2 was because of purely financial reasons—although i don't understand why. R2 said so. Fine, R2 is a business and profits are King! That doesn't mean fans have to like that decision and not be frustrated, especially after having been teased with such promise and for so long!


----------



## eimb1999 (Sep 8, 2007)

Spock 62... I think you've pretty much nailed it. GREAT post.


----------



## eimb1999 (Sep 8, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> Love the logic here. A (potential) customer gets frustrated with a company’s poor track record producing one of the products it’s allegedly in business to produce, and the CUSTOMER is the jerk for not making the product himself. Brilliant.


Fortunately for the rest of us Carson, your opinion seems to be in the minority.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Carson Dyle said:


> Love the logic here. A (potential) customer gets frustrated with a company’s poor track record producing one of the products it’s allegedly in business to produce, and the CUSTOMER is the jerk for not making the product himself. Brilliant.


Er... yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Why didn't I consider that?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Round 2 now has all the info needed to produce the Galileo kit. Instead of a full blown big box kit with an interior (a real TARDIS dilemma), how about half a loaf and release a 1/72 scale kit of the shuttle with no interior. Even breaking the hull up into pieces like Bandai it would still be a fairly low sprue count if you forget putting anything inside.
I hate that they shelved it, possibly into limbo like other announced kits which for one reason or another they decided not to pursue. It would be nice to have something special for the 50th Anniversary and a couple of repops is just business as usual, not an epic celebration. Putting an old kit into a shiny new box does not make a celebration, it is just a cynical marketing ploy.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Oh well... I may be in my late 50's but I'm in decent health so there's still time to build an accurate Galileo someday. Hopefully Jamie can get it produced sometime down the road. 
Guess I'll be spending the money I was saving for the _Galileo_ on the _Proteus_ when it comes out.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Jeebus! It's not like Trekfans don't already have a plethora of product to buy and build. I'd like to see IP kits from other GA shows like UFO and Fireball XL5. Or an IP 2001 Discovery and Space Pod. The BSG TOS GAL356 Shuttle. A new-tool Buck Rogers Thunderfighter. An IP kit of the Seeker from Space Academy.

I like Star Trek too, but the Universe doesn't revolve in a geocentric orbit around it.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

I cant believe a 1999 Eagle would be more popular than anything Star Trek related. Oh well...


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> This is not a complex issue. No, S1999 is not as popular as Star Trek. That's why the decision is puzzling to me. The only reason the decision to go w/ the Eagle instead of the Galileo was a good one for R2 was because of purely financial reasons—although i don't understand why. R2 said so. Fine, R2 is a business and profits are King! That doesn't mean fans have to like that decision and not be frustrated, especially after having been teased with such promise and for so long!


Didn't say you have to like the decision, I don't either. But, I do understand _why_ they did it. Many companies have "teased" potential future kits, only to put the project on hold or cancel it altogether. That's just how it works sometimes. While I do think the Galileo would have sold well, R2 determined that a 1:48 Eagle would do better. Did they make a mistake? Maybe, maybe not. It's their decision and we have to live with it. They do listen to us, but they have to do what's best for their company too, as they see fit.

And yes, I think Trek is more popular then Space 1999, _but_ Trek has a variety of kits to chose from, some new-tool and very accurate. Space 1999 had only 3 kits, all old-tools, the Moonbase (recently made more accurate), the Space Buggy thing that was never on the show and a _really inaccurate_ Eagle. So, I think a lot of people, myself included, are very happy R2 decided to produce the 22" Eagle. Of course, it would have been great if both the Eagle _and_ Galileo were produced, but them's the breaks, so to speak.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

spock62 said:


> didn't say you have to like the decision, i don't either. But, i do understand _why_ they did it. Many companies have "teased" potential future kits, only to put the project on hold or cancel it altogether. That's just how it works sometimes. While i do think the galileo would have sold well, r2 determined that a 1:48 eagle would do better. Did they make a mistake? Maybe, maybe not. It's their decision and we have to live with it. They do listen to us, but they have to do what's best for their company too, as they see fit.
> 
> And yes, i think trek is more popular then space 1999, _but_ trek has a variety of kits to chose from, some new-tool and very accurate. Space 1999 had only 3 kits, all old-tools, the moonbase (recently made more accurate), the space buggy thing that was never on the show and a _really inaccurate_ eagle. So, i think a lot of people, myself included, are very happy r2 decided to produce the 22" eagle. Of course, it would have been great if both the eagle _and_ galileo were produced, but them's the breaks, so to speak.


thank you!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

eimb1999 said:


> Fortunately for the rest of us Carson, your opinion seems to be in the minority.


Fortunately for R2 too! It'll save them the headache of having to release newly-tooled Star Trek kits! The pressure is off, boys... Trek modelers are happy with another reissue of the Bridge set. Mission accomplished!



spock62 said:


> They are in business to make money, right?


They’re in business to make money. They’re just not in business to make many Star Trek models. Which is a shame, given the popularity of the franchise amongst sci-fi modelers.



spock62 said:


> Sounds to me like R2 is trying to give us what we want.


If what we want is “not much.” Personally, I’d like to build some new Star Trek models, but I guess that’s too much to ask from the company that holds the license. 



spock62 said:


> Right now, we're in the Golden Age of kits, when you consider not only the subject matter being produced, but the overall quality of the kits (and I'm talking all types of kits, not just Sci-Fi). Maybe a little more gratitude is in order.


I expressed that exact sentiment upthread. My complaint is with R2, and not with companies like Moebius, Pegasus, Tamiya, and Bandai, all of whom clearly have the means and desire to actually do something with the licenses they hold.

Then again, I’ve got lots of projects on the bench, and plenty of unbuilt kits in the closet. I was hoping against hope for a Galileo (Gary’s plans were/are amazing), but we can’t get everything we want. So, yes, by all means, let’s all be grateful to R2 for funding as little new Trek tooling as possible. This will no doubt be a huge relief to Tom Lowe.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

seaQuest said:


> It's not like Trekfans don't already have a plethora of product to buy and build.


Your point is well taken, but the Galileo is special I think. There never has been an accurate injection-molded version of this classic TOS design. Longtime Trek modelers have been waiting a loooooong time for this one, and R2 really got our hopes up. I'm not sure if Randy Cooper still offers his Galileo, but for those who can afford the price tag I suppose it will have to do.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Well, on the one hand, I totally feel for you guys. I specially think that Round 2's marketing idea of letting people _pick_ the next kit was ill conceived. 



Jamie said:


> *What comes next?*
> 
> Our biggest announcement is that we are reaching out to the modeling community to decide one of our 2013 kit releases. The audience in attendance at our presentation took an active role to determine who the candidates will be. Everyone is eligible to cast their vote. Go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6HFNN6Z to answer a few questions for us and vote for one of the following kits
> 
> ...


On the other hand I'm relieved for my two clients who I'm building Galileo models for right now. I'm happy that there will be two people who will have Galileo models for the 50th.




Carson Dyle said:


> Ah, well, there's always the Randy Cooper kit.


Is that really an adequate consolation prize?

I don't know enough about Star Wars models to judge, but if I had to rate Randy Cooper's accuracy based on his Galileo, he wouldn't get high marks. This is a quick comparison of his model with my study model (both are about the same size).








And even though my study model was an attempt to replicate the studio model, here is a quick comparison of it to the large scale mock-up...








And yeah, one of the two models I'm currently building does include an interior (based on the plans I did for Starship Exeter's shuttlecraft interior back in 2004).



Just to be clear, I'm not building any more Galileo models at this size after I finish these two models. I might be willing to attempt a studio scale replica at some point, but between these two models I'll have done all the things I really wanted to with this design after I had finished my study model. And that includes improving my decal graphics to look more like the original studio model's decals...


_Click to enlarge_​
So for me, I've gotten to do nearly everything I've wanted out of the Galileo design from TOS. But I do feel for you guys and understand your frustration.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Shaw said:


> Is that really an adequate consolation prize?




Yeah, I built the Cooper model a few year's back. The kit has issues, but with a little effort it can be beaten into shape.



Here's the build thread, which is full of all sorts of Galileo coolness...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=229854&highlight=

But I agree with you Shaw... An injection-molded kit based Gary's plans would have been a serious improvement in terms of accuracy, affordability, and relative ease-of-build.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

spock62 said:


> So, I think a lot of people, myself included, are very happy R2 decided to produce the 22" Eagle. Of course, it would have been great if both the Eagle _and_ Galileo were produced, but them's the breaks, so to speak.


The only kits I'm interested in right now are a 1:350 TOS Klingon D7 and an accurate Galileo model. This news is a huge disappointment.

---------------


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I'm with Carson on this one. I would be so happy if Moebius got the Trek license. That would be amazing.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

PixelMagic said:


> I'm with Carson on this one. I would be so happy if Moebius got the Trek license. That would be amazing.


Amen!


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> I'm with Carson on this one. I would be so happy if Moebius got the Trek license. That would be amazing.


Pfft. Like Frank can afford it.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, I built the Cooper model a few year's back. The kit has issues, but with a little effort it can be beaten into shape.


You built an absolutely beautiful model. And I spent nearly as much time reading (and re-reading) that thread as I did your Custom Replicas Klingon D-7 thread. And I thought Steve Neill produced a nice build of that kit too.

But as pretty as it can end up in the hands of a skilled builder, it is still a highly stylized rendering of the subject. Some of the best shuttlecraft models I've seen have actually been conversions of the AMT kit... like this one by the late Thomas Sasser.








While I know you don't hold my research in high regard, it isn't like there isn't awesome plans of the shuttlecraft available to work from. I thought Phil Broad's plans of the large scale mock-up were great.

Which is why it is hard to imagine how Randy Cooper settled on his design. It isn't like there wasn't a ton of references to work from. And for the price of his kit (and his reputation for accurate replicas), it is hard to believe he missed the mark by so much.

Sight unseen, I'd like to think that a model based on Kerr's plans would be really accurate. But currently I only know of one model of the TOS shuttlecraft associated with Kerr.








And it is at least somewhat better than Cooper's.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> Round 2 now has all the info needed to produce the Galileo kit. Instead of a full blown big box kit with an interior (a real TARDIS dilemma), how about half a loaf and release a 1/72 scale kit of the shuttle with no interior. Even breaking the hull up into pieces like Bandai it would still be a fairly low sprue count if you forget putting anything inside.
> I hate that they shelved it, possibly into limbo like other announced kits which for one reason or another they decided not to pursue. It would be nice to have something special for the 50th Anniversary and a couple of repops is just business as usual, not an epic celebration. Putting an old kit into a shiny new box does not make a celebration, it is just a cynical marketing ploy.


I was thinking exactly that, a smaller scale, no-interior kit, but darn it I just know the internet would blow up, some would even claim stupid things like 'that's bait and switch! how dare you!' referencing the earlier talk of a larger scale kit. 

I fear the American model community isn't mature enough to accept a kit that's an accurate exterior and a separate 'screen accurate to the filming set' interior, as Jamie speculated and dismissed. 

Another path might have been to do what Old Polar Lights did with their Jupiter II, distort scale. Accurate exterior to scale, shrunken interior to cram the set into that available space. I'm sure that would have caused its own share of outrage.

They COULD make the Galileo without ANY interior and tell us "hey, you figure it out!" but then how many would buy into a $60 or so kit that was like 10 parts? *heh* but in a way, that would be 'screen accurate' to the filming prop. 

No, there's an honest and true Gordian Knot involving this kit and there's no way to untie it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

seaQuest said:


> Pfft. Like Frank can afford it.


Frank has done just fine with Irwin Allen, Fox, Galactica, Warners, Marvel, Universal, and others. I very much doubt he’s losing any sleep over not having Trek – especially given some of the things Moebius has in the pipeline. Besides, I think CBS likes having the license with Round 2. There's a familiarity there. What do they care if R2 can't figure out how to make a profit from newly-tooled Star Trek models, as long as R2 coughs up the licensing dough.



Shaw said:


> While I know you don't hold my research in high regard...


Huh?

I totally agree with everything you just posted. True, I was extremely excited by the thought of a Gary Kerr-designed Galileo because he's a fanatic for detail, and he had some great reference at his disposal (including a couple images of the full-scale mockup circa 1973, provided by yours truly). Based on the sneak-peeks he showed me I felt he'd done an outstanding job of melding the best features of the Galileo mock-up with those of the FX miniature. Efforts which now, unfortunately, we Trek modelers will not benefit from.

BTW, that scratch-built Galileo of Gary's was done AGES ago -- pre-internet, I believe. Suffice to say additional data has come to light since its construction.

Little something Gary posted on Facebook...


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Fortunately for R2 too! It'll save them the headache of having to release newly-tooled Star Trek kits! The pressure is off, boys... Trek modelers are happy with another reissue of the Bridge set. Mission accomplished!


Who said Trek modelers are happy with _just_ reissues? Like I said, I'm as disappointed about the Galileo being canned as the other guy. I do think some of the reissues are good, especially the ones that address accuracy issues along with better decals. But, some aren't the greatest. Personally, I'm tired of seeing the 18" TOS Enterprise re-re-reissued in different boxes every year. And R2 didn't go far enough with accurizing the Bridge Set, IMHO, though what you get is OK. Like many of you, I want to see more new-tool Trek, not less.



Carson Dyle said:


> They’re in business to make money. They’re just not in business to make many Star Trek models. Which is a shame, given the popularity of the franchise amongst sci-fi modelers.


They do make other types of kits and have several toy lines too. All that takes cash to do. Also, there are modelers who want kits of something other then Star Trek ships, so R2 has to serve them in order to stay in business. Even a Trek fan like me gets bored making Trek kits over and over!



Carson Dyle said:


> If what we want is “not much.” Personally, I’d like to build some new Star Trek models, but I guess that’s too much to ask from the company that holds the license.


As I wrote, I want to see more new-tool Trek, not less. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending how you look at it, R2 holds the license and their calling the shots on what does or does not get made.



Carson Dyle said:


> I expressed that exact sentiment upthread. My complaint is with R2, and not with companies like Moebius, Pegasus, Tamiya, and Bandai, all of whom clearly have the means and desire to actually do something with the licenses they hold.


Different companies, different leadership, different financial & personal resources and different goals. By the way, R2 hasn't only cancelled Trek kits that were in the pipeline. They've also cancelled DC and Marvel figure kits and new-tool Alien kits, to name a few. So, it's not like they have something against Trek.



Carson Dyle said:


> Then again, I’ve got lots of projects on the bench, and plenty of unbuilt kits in the closet. I was hoping against hope for a Galileo (Gary’s plans were/are amazing), but we can’t get everything we want. So, yes, by all means, let’s all be grateful to R2 for funding as little new Trek tooling as possible. This will no doubt be a huge relief to Tom Lowe.


IMHO, R2's main problem is that they get ahead of themselves. They go and announce that their going to make such an such a kit. Then they post updates on their blog and then, after people are amped up for the kit, they (sometimes) cancel it or put it on hold. Maybe they should just make it known from the start that, for unforeseen reasons, the kit may never be made. Only after they know 100%, should they tell everyone the kit is being produced. It would save them some headaches. And make for less unhappy modelers!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I feel sorry for those of you who wanted this but I can't pretend I'm disappointed as it's never been anywhere near the top of my wants list. 

I just hope we get that 1/350th K'Tinga now.


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

I'm inclined to agree that R2 is tying up the license and keeping it from companies who would produce more kits. The re-pops are the easiest and cheapest thing they can do to maintain the license. 1/1000 NX-01 in a green box, then reissued in a red box then again with a gray box with the captain gold foil insignia on the box etc. You wait many months just for a colored changed box re-issue. So if the studio got complaints that R2 was not putting new Trek stuff out R2 can point out different color packages as new releases. If you think about it EVERY new SIGNIFICANT Trek kit has been cancelled. After many years of delays from the initial announcement and a re-announcement and threats of potential shelving because of tooling costs, we got a beautiful 1/350 TOS E. In 2003 when Polar Lights was first bought by Racing Champions they had no interest in the Trek line. They wanted the die cast car part of the company. Polar Lights had a 1/350 K'tinga well into development and the 1/350 Refit was in the middle of being tooled. Polar Lights was bought and the K'tinga was CANCELLED. Luckily for us the refit was too far along to cancel. After we got the refit and it was a success, they said the 1/350 Akira was next and was a go.... then delayed, then CANCELLED. Then the JJprise was announced. Long after the movie was released and many delays---CANCELLED. And now after polling and announcement of the shuttle as well as development drawings---Guess what?---CANCELLED. So the only SUBSTANTIAL Trek kit we have received since PL was first bought out in 2003 is the 1/350 TOS Enterprise. And they kicked and screamed the whole way about doing it because of the cost (No complaints about the product itself, just the company). So there is a definite pattern and thus the frustration. I understand the business aspects but this is excessive. If the Trek line is TOO RICH for them, and they only want to do trinkets, then let the license go to a company that will use it. That's their prerogative but don't sit on it like a bird waiting for it's egg to hatch. Notice how quickly they (as a license holder) put the Kybosh on the Revell Germany JJprise from being imported because of potential competition. They appear to want it both ways. We cant make kits the fans want but we hold the license so you can't either.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

djnick66 said:


> I cant believe a 1999 Eagle would be more popular than anything Star Trek related. Oh well...




Not more popular than say the Enterprise or even a Klingon ship etc but even though Space 1999 was never as big as Trek..............the Eagle is still one of the most famous, well remembered ships of all time. Especially in the age range that is probably the biggest buyer of kits (middle aged/older males).

The Eagles are also one of the most distinctive spaceship designs ever whilst although it's from the more famous show........the Galileo isn't. There probably is more Eagle fans than Galileo fans and this is why it seems to have paid off for R2 doing the Eagle.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

spock62 said:


> R2's main problem is that they get ahead of themselves.


R2's main problem is that management would rather take home a big paycheck than spend money on the tooling and materials required to consistently produce high quality sci-fi kits. And that's fine. The business model seems to be working for them, and far be it from me to malign their capitalist spirit. 

In a perfect world the company that owned the rights to Star Trek models would actually produce a quality Star Trek model once in a while, i.e. one featuring new tooling and a respectable scale. Clearly that's asking too much, so this modeler will henceforth leave R2 to their wares. It's not like there aren't other companies producing awesome sci-fi models.

Pity about the Galileo, but with any luck Gary Kerr will hook up with a good garage-kit manufacturer, and Galileo fans will FINALLY get the accurate and reasonably scaled shuttlecraft kit we've been pining for since the 70's. Sure, the price will be more than what R2 would have charged, but at least we'll have the damned model.

Happy Modeling, guys. :wave:


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

I'm disappointed about this but not surprised--the difference between the Galileo and the Eagle is the Eagle is a modular design that lends itself to all kinds of build possibilities and add-ons, and obviously the kit is selling very well--R2 was smart to do it. The Galileo's options are maybe to build it into a big diorama but it was really presented only one way in the series. It's still possible R2 will figure a way to do this--yes, they've "cancelled" a lot of kits but a number of the cancelled ones have shown up later (The Wicked Witch and King Kong) as very expensive, prepainted resin items. Not saying that will happen to the Galileo. I would still think R2 would want to find some way of taking more advantage of Trek's 50th anniversary--there won't be a bigger marketing opportunity in our lifetimes. And remember what a surprise the Eagle announcement was. Maybe R2 has something else up their sleeves. Supposedly Randy Cooper is redoing his kit to improve the accuracy.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Unlike something like the K'Tinga which is a large ship and is served much better by a larger model to do justice to all the detail, the Galileo could be done as a much smaller model. Maybe that's what they'll do in the future.


----------



## Cappy1 (Jan 17, 2011)

No new trek releases ?. Didn't they just do a reliant and a romulan bird of prey.
thats with the repops and 1/2500 ones they've done. Ya I'm disappointed that the Galileo has been put on hold, but how many new kits can we hoard in a year, let alone build. 
I for one think great, take a little more time. work the kinks out. I'll just continue on with the bridge and my bandai's I have more than enough on my plate to keep me occupied this year.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Like everyone else, I too am disappointed. I also understand their reasoning to postpone this model, and hope they will release it in the near future at some point. As for the Eagle, I really enjoy this model and am glad they released one that is as accurate as it could be. It is second to both the 1:350 Enterprises. I know Jamie stated the Eagle was selling very well so it obviously has a tremendous amount of fans. But, it was probably a good business decision on their part, as much as it disappoints us all. The Eagle has been requested and is very popular now, but will it be in the future? The Galileo will always be popular due to the fan base of Star Trek. So right now I would be happy with whatever R2 comes out with for Space 1999 because we may never get a chance to see these kits again. I, for one, would also love to see a 1:350 D7 or K'Tinga, but believe this will be further down the line as well.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I'm a little disappointed by all this. Not pulling the plug on the Galileo, the reactions of some of us. People are acting like it's a personal insult or something, and the rational thought that peppered both the Eagle and Bandai Star Wars threads (along with the usual increase in 'noise'  ) seems to have been completely abandoned. I don't get it. 

Star Trek, as a license, is ALWAYS teetering on the edge. There are products contained within the I.P. that are guaranteed sellers, and others that are dearly desired but rarely to be found. 

Look at the see-saw of Diamond Select/Art Asylum. They make a handful of figures, then kill the line when a really foolish marketing choice gets made and sales drop. They make those really nice Classic Phasers, Communicators and Tricorders, but can't find a way to make a TNG Tricorder, they fear it 'just won't sell' based on the idiotic idea that since they had to make the medical and Geo tricorders store exclusives, there's no market for more Tricorders.

(and forget ever seeing a 'Dr. McCoy Field Medical Kit' That's a license to print money yet never gonna happen, even with a motorized scanner already possible. bah.)

Companies that focus too much on numbers tend to plan short-term and throw away their interest in Star Trek. Companies that think long term tend to keep going. Companies that listen to fans can succeed. Companies that listen too much to SOME fans AND think short term, die. 

R2 sounds really busy trying to re-incorporate Johnny Lightning. That's good for them, but they HAVE to understand that they will NEVER topple Mattel's hold with Hot Wheels and Matchbox. The market for specialty die-cast is REALLY full now (not to mention fairly played out) and trying to regain past glory is dangerous. 

And frankly, I was there back in the day, when Hot Wheels was new and Topper was fronting Johnny Lightning as all that. Those cars were ass. Their tracks were ass. This, of course, is the opinion of a child back in the '60s, so who cares. 

Know what I can imagine? Gary K taking all that obsessive knowledge of the 11 foot Enterprise he's gaining and R2 cranking out a new 'AMT scale' kit just in time for the 50th anny. Wouldn't that be something? A kit even better than the 1/350, in a more reasonable size and pricepoint. Would we all dance, or would there be a massive tearing of shirts and screaming to the gods "BUT IT'S NOT THE GALILEO!!!" ?

Give them some time. Things will work out. I have that much faith. 

Don't hate


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

SUNGOD said:


> ...the Eagle is still one of the most famous, well remembered ships of all time. Especially in the age range that is probably the biggest buyer of kits (middle aged/older males).
> 
> The Eagles are also one of the most distinctive spaceship designs ever whilst although it's from the more famous show........the Galileo isn't. There probably is more Eagle fans than Galileo fans and this is why it seems to have paid off for R2 doing the Eagle.



I couldn't disagree more! You can argue in favor of this Eagle--with its easy to tool design, devoid of controversy and interior-vs-exterior headaches--until the cows come home, but there is no doubt in most rational minds that Star Trek is far more iconic and popular than 1999 in every age group! And by exactly the same token, the Galileo is far more iconic than the Eagle--especially upon the 50th anniversary of Star Trek! Add to that the fact that there has NEVER been a decent kit of Jefferies' shuttlecraft, and it's not hard to understand why after being enticed with the expectation of the definitive Galileo kit for a couple of years, Galileo-starved Trek fans can now officially be categorized as, how Deniro would say, just a little bit peeved at the news of,"never mind."

As far as I'm concerned, R2 does not deserve a pass on this Trek betrayal.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> I couldn't disagree more! You can argue in favor of this Eagle until the proverbial bovines come home, but there is no doubt in most rational minds that Star Trek is far more iconic and popular than 1999--in every age group! And by exactly the same token, the Galileo is far more iconic than the Eagle--especially upon the 50th anniversary of Star Trek! Add to that the fact that there has NEVER been a decent kit of Jefferies' shuttlecraft, and it's not hard to understand why after being enticed with the expectation of the definitive Galileo kit for a couple of years, Galileo-starved Trek fans can now officially be categorized as just a little bit peeved at the news of," never mind."


Let the butthurt flow through you.

Adding to what Steve H said, some of you Trek fanboys are starting to sound like you have a false sense of entitlement. Get over yourselves. There's other SF besides Star Trek. So it's your favorite series? Fine, but to exclude other SF borders on obsessive/compulsive. 

"Trek betrayal." Jeebus, what a drama queen. Those are the words of someone whose love of ST goes as far as the exclusion of all else. 

See, I used to be a huge ST fanboy like all you other fanboys. I used to go to cons and do (what's now called) Cosplay and had an OS uniform and a TMP uniform (before TMP was released) and bought and built the models and bought the VHS tapes and whatnot.
I don't have that stuff anymore. Because fanboys ruined ST for me with their obsession, the kind displayed in this thread. I tossed out my ST models and took my DVDs down to Amoeba Music in Hollywood and sold them off. I receive more satisfaction watching the DNR'd to hell Blu-rays of Battlestar Galactica TOS than Star Trek. I DO, however, have an SF series that features William Shatner...Tekwar.

So since *some* of you Trekkie fanboys are acting like spoiled, petulant children, I'll come down to your level of whining.

We got our badass Eagle kit and you're not getting your Galileo! Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa! 
Neener, neener, neener!

(Boy, that felt awesome!)


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

seaQuest said:


> Let the butthurt flow through you.


Thanks for the personal sentiment. Same to you. Next time you feel like personally attacking someone, get over it.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> Thanks for the personal sentiment. Same to you. Next time you feel like personally attacking someone, get over it.


I don't believe I mentioned names.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

seaQuest said:


> I don't believe I mentioned names.


No, of course not.  

At least man-up if you're going to insult someone:



seaQuest said:


> Let the butthurt flow through you.
> 
> ...some of you Trek fanboys are starting to sound like you have a false sense of entitlement. Get over yourselves. There's other SF besides Star Trek. So it's your favorite series? Fine, but to exclude other SF borders on obsessive/compulsive.
> 
> ...



Wow! Are you for real?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve H said:


> I'm a little disappointed by all this. Not pulling the plug on the Galileo, the reactions of some of us. People are acting like it's a personal insult or something


Nonsense. This is not personal, and no one has suggested, or even hinted, otherwise. It’s simply frustrating to some of us longtime sci-fi model-makers that the company sitting on a coveted license like Trek has so little to show for it after all these years.

Imagine if, a decade or so ago, Moebius had acquired the Fox license and proceeded to re-pop various incarnations of the old Aurora kits, along with maybe the Jupiter 2, and a seven-inch-long version of the TV Seaview. And that’s it for the decade. No original Space Pod, no movie Seaview, no Flying Sub, no Proteus, no Robot, no Chariot, no… etc. (-:

Do you get my drift? 

This isn’t some petulant, self-entitled hissy-fit. This is a loyal consumer voicing his passionate but reasonable opinion that R2 has dropped the ball when it comes to producing the sort of kits Trek and its fans are worthy of. How is that opinion even contestable, let alone controversial? R2’s record speaks for itself. Hey, random model forum poster, you’re indifferent to new Trek kits and can’t see what all the fuss is about? Fine. I submit your take on the matter is less than relevant because YOU DON’T LIKE TREK KITS. Go condescend somewhere else.

It’s not a question of whether R2 has the rights to do whatever they want with the license they’ve done so little with. Of course they do. Jerry Perenchio owns the rights to Blade Runner, and he doesn’t give a crap about us model makers either. Do we have any Jerry Perenchio fans in the audience? Well, here’s your chance to tell him how “grateful” you are.

Bottom line: R2 has locked up the modeling rights to the Trek franchise for commercial gain (which is their right), and they’re seemingly content to do very little by way of producing new Trek kits. That may not bother some of you the way it does some of us, and that’s fine. Just don’t tell me I’m being “unfair” for expecting a company to actually deliver the products covered under the license it’s guarding, like Smaug with his gold. 

Insert skeptical Willy Wonka meme here: “So, you have “faith” in R2 to “work things out” for Trek Modelers, do you? Let’s see how that works out…”

Yes, it’s only model making. It doesn’t really matter all that much. This isn’t what I discuss with my wife over dinner, but it is a hobby I’m passionate about, and this is a hobby forum.

R2 is the greedy, dysfunctional, obstructionist congressman of the Trek modeling universe (insert party of choice here).



seaQuest said:


> Let the butthurt flow through you.


Okay SteveH, NOW someone has made it personal. And not one of us "fanboy" Galileo fans, either. 

Reminder: this thread is about the cancellation of the long-promised Galileo model. In case some of you had forgotten why some of us felt obliged to voice our disappointment here. Honestly, what do any of us owe R2 other than our patronage when they release a cool kit? If I didn't know better I'd think I was one of the few here not currently on their payroll (but, man oh man, do I know better).


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

It is just a model kit and certainly is not the most important thing going on in the world. But that being said it is frustrating to have announcements made then cancelled. They did this with the Alien anniversary. They rendered up a 3d queen alien, announced it's is being made then after the Alien anniversary was over....CANCELLED. It's almost like they want to keep the attention on themselves so they can be a part of the anniversary excitement and thus make some re-pop sales from that excitement then cancel when it's time to pony up. If everybody knew that all they would do is re-pops then people would lose interest in what the company was doing. Do you really think there would be pages and pages of conversation here and at other forums for just re-pops. So in order for them to stay on our radar they make big announcements (and an announcement is the key here. That's different then a possibility) that don't pan out. Don't keep making big public unveilings if it's potentially not going happen. Then months later and in between updates on the big announcements there's the "by the way we have a new special edition re-boxed re-pop coming". Then surprise, the big announcement has been CANCELLED. Remember they make big fanfare about upcoming announcements that will be made at upcoming shows. "Come see us at our booth at XYZ show in June where we will be making a big announcement". So why create the big fanfare if the special announcement is only tentative. It would be like being in a big auditorium with the crowd speaking amongst themselves. Then a R2 rep gets up on stage and says through the microphone "May I have your attention please, may I have your attention". Everybody becomes silent. "Go through the door on my right into the next room, we have lunch for everybody" Then we all move to the next room patiently waiting for the lunch and we get a second announcement "The lunches were going to be too expensive so we didn't bring them. But the good news is that you are in luck. We can sell you a battered and fried refit box at 20% off. Sorry for any inconvenience". One or two cancellations, ok things happen. Three and four cancellations, hmmmm. Five and six cancellations, pattern. Then you get the "Buy the re-pops in bulk to support them so they can give us new kits". I don't know, I feel like the horse chasing the carrot on the end of the stick. If they put the effort, money and other resources that they ALREADY expended on the development that was done on all those cancelled kits, they might have squeezed out one or two new Trek kits. THATS WHY THE FRUSTRATION. It's not the kit its the principal.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Proper2 said:


> I couldn't disagree more! You can argue in favor of this Eagle--with its easy to tool design, devoid of controversy and interior-vs-exterior headaches--until the cows come home, but there is no doubt in most rational minds that Star Trek is far more iconic and popular than 1999 in every age group! And by exactly the same token, the Galileo is far more iconic than the Eagle--especially upon the 50th anniversary of Star Trek! Add to that the fact that there has NEVER been a decent kit of Jefferies' shuttlecraft, and it's not hard to understand why after being enticed with the expectation of the definitive Galileo kit for a couple of years, Galileo-starved Trek fans can now officially be categorized as, how Deniro would say, just a little bit peeved at the news of,"never mind."
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, R2 does not deserve a pass on this Trek betrayal.




I'm not denying that Trek is much more well known and popular than Space 1999 but that doesn't necessarily apply to the Gallileo. And you're forgetting the age group who mainly build models which as I said is older men like most of us on here. And even though Trek is the bigger show and the Enterprise is no doubt more popular and iconic than the Eagles.........the Eagles ain't far behind. The Gallileo is also obviously popular with Trek fans (which I am) but just because it's a Trek ship doesn't mean it's more popular with this age group than the Eagles. In fact it probably isn't.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Rob, I'm regretful that you seem to think that if I'm not with you 100% on this issue, I must be against you. That's not the case. I understand your passion, it's just for me a new, accurate (to SOME factors, not to all which is impossible) Galileo isn't a 'grail' kit. I don't have a grail kit. Even my passion I exhibited for the new tool Eagle was more for hoping for R2 to re-think some aspects to make a MORE commercial kit, and a couple of those ideas did jibe with thinking at R2. The MAIN effort I leaned towards, a new-tool Eagle in 12 inches (or thereabouts), was dismissed and locked out by the thinking that the existing MPC Eagle was 'good enough' for that market. 

Yet they claim that sales success of that old busted MPC kit led to the greenlight for the 22" new tool Eagle. I really don't see how that leads to an "A=B" scenario but it did. 

So, Star Trek. There were several kits that had only one production run under AMT, I think they were the K-7 station, the Bridge set, Galileo and the Exploration set. Correct me if I'm wrong, that's just from my memory. 

K-7 got re-released and had some minor revision to the tooling. Bridge set got some MAJOR love, work that made it the kit it should have been way back in the day. Exploration set, pretty much straight re-pop and I don't think they've ever re-released the Galileo.

K-7 went well, Bridge set got love for the new work, Exploration Set, it came out and SOMEBODY bought it. I have no access to numbers of course but I would bet a meal at Five Guys that those three kits combined didn't break 5,000 units. Honestly, were I in charge that crappy Exploration Set wouldn't have seen the light of day. I would have redone it with 'full size' props. But that's me.

Sales that soft are poison in this niche market. 

So why hasn't R2 repopped the AMT Galileo? I assume their story has been they just wanted to make that all-new kit and not 'old busted'. Yet, again, go back to what I said about the Eagle. Why NOT the repop the old Galileo, just to see if it's got some traction.

So, yeah, R2 is listening too hard to the money person. I'm with you on that. It's a real constant problem. The issue to my mind is UNDERSTANDING both the I.P. and the products. If the judgement is "We lost our shirts on the Exploration Set, so we can't risk a new tool Galileo" I think that's a major, major failure in understanding why the Exploration Set was desired.

And here is full circle to die-cast cars. Mattel and everyone else loves the 'treasure hunt' of short-run and random rare cars. They are told by their fanbase this is a great thing. But it's not. What drives those voices are the scalpers, the ones who snatch up those hard-to-find cars to flip and sell on eBay for much, more more than retail. 

So that's what I think happened. There were Trekfans who see crazy prices for some of the 'one-run' Trek kits and want them for that reason, and that reason alone. I'll bet during the early run of the Exploration Set repop idiots were posting them on the 'Bay hoping to trick the ignorant into paying a 'bargain price' for such a 'rare' collectable. 

And maybe not. No way to know. 

I think the real problem is they don't know who to listen to. So they listen to numbers. And when Johnny Lightning sales show up 'soft' and below projections, they should get back to putting money into Trek kits. 

It's a real shame. Not cashing in on the 50th anny seems really dumb to me. It's kind of a big deal. Cripes, if this were Japan they'd be re-releasing the AMT Enterprise in chrome, maybe even gold chrome, for the anniversary.


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

This thread reminds me of all the complaining that went on about r2's decision to inscribe gridlines on the 1/350 tos E saucer, in the sense that some feel the need to voice their displeasure over and over and over again. Star Trek became huge in the 70s through re-runs, but this particular type of re-run is far less enjoyable.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

eimb1999 said:


> You know, you're perfectly free to start up your own business, compete for and purchase the license and produce the stuff yourself. Nobody is stopping you. If you think you can do a better job and turn a tidy profit (that's a necessity if you want to STAY in business), you'll not only satisfy yourself but others as well. So, have at it by all means.


I'm sorry, but the "if you think you can do better..." argument has always been a lame one. I don't need to be a singer to know if I don't like a certain song, even if I can't sing, myself. And I'm under no obligation to BE a singer just to validate my opinion.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

This thread has inspired me. I'mma hound Frank until Moebius until they produce kits of every ship in the original Battlestar Galactica's rag-tag fleet. Then, I'll get under his skin about licensing V.

This, of course, after they release the Burt Ward Robin figure (for me, Batman 66 is the be-all-and-end-all) which is held up because Warners won't approve it. (Perhaps Burt himself? I remember when actors could hold up a kit if they didn't take a shine to the likeness.)


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

From reading the posts in this thread, it makes my heart feel good to know that children are once again interested in and building models!!!!!


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Seems to me this whole business of licensing monopolies to produce product lines has way outlived its usefulness to anyone - licensors, licensees, and consumers. Licensors have weird demands about everything from which subjects you have to make to what poses characters can have. Licensees have certain subjects they're good at, certain subjects they want to make, and others they don't want to or can't. Consumers want - everything. And not just one of everything, each one seems to want something different from every single subject, or three of every variant. 

Imagine a universe where Bandai or Moebius or Round 2 could approach a licensor and say, "We want to build a model of the Seaview. Just the Seaview. How much do you want as your cut of the profits?" And have the suits say, "Sure, one Seaview, 10%, 20%, whatever." And then have a second company also say, "We want to build a Seaview, too." And that be possible. A Bandai Seaview. A Moebius Seaview. A Monogram Seaview. None of them would be the same. Maybe some would be better than the others. Maybe some would be different versions, different scales. Kind of like armor and aircraft and ships and autos and... oh, like every other kind of model. Competition. How many F16s or Me109s are there out there? Two or three 1701s or Vipers or Flying Subs in different scales from various manufacturers on various continents might even increase a subject's visibility and even increase sales, not cut into each other's. Even very, very obscure military kits show up from different manufacturers, sometimes simultaneously, and somehow they sell. Imagine if Alfred Wong could get legit permission to make an X-Wing. Maybe once in a while we'd get something that would satisfy most (never all) builders. 

Be a good time for model companies to get together a suggest to the suits a new way of doing things. Take on the whole licensing structure. It works for short-term McDonalds McPoison poured into a Star Wars container for a couple months before next being poured into a Dork Knight container before... and he next big franchise film comes along. It doesn't work so well on longer-term things like the making and selling of kits over years, or even decades. 

But, no, sf modellers still have to deal with movie studio suits. Who know full well how creative accounting works, and are probably terrified of that kind of bidness model because they're well versed in how to make the biggest money making shows of the year like Alien and Blue Thunder and Rockford Files not make a "profit". They're undoubtedly worried worried that it would be too easy for turnaround to screw them out of their share of profits, so they just sell their antiquated, monolithic license packages and we, the consumer, are stuck with what we can get, or what we can't get. Unless we turn to making things ourselves. 

Edit PS You think we're frustrated? Imagine how Gary Kerr must feel. 104 sheets of plans he researched and drafted. It would have been a beauty.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

starseeker said:


> magine how Gary Kerr must feel. 104 sheets of plans he researched and drafted. It would have been a beauty.


Gary is a friend, and we've been pinging messages back and forth. He's disappointed of course, but he's a grownup, and I think he knew a long time ago that the R2 Galileo wasn't going to happen. 

Now that R2 has dropped the ball I've no doubt someone in the garage kit world will produce a Galileo kit. Randy Cooper has already announced he's going to release an updated and more accurate version of his Galileo. I've been bugging Randy and Gary to collaborate, but no one listens to me. 

S'all good.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Maybe he's planning to take all his drawings over to Shapeways and start his own garage kit company. Go, Gary, go!


----------



## modelsj (May 12, 2004)

AGAIN, being lovers of the art, imo it is more fun to scratch build what is needed and re-create the thing the way it was intended to be originally, at a much lower investment with the satisfaction you did it yourself


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

starseeker said:


> Seems to me this whole business of licensing monopolies to produce product lines has way outlived its usefulness to anyone - licensors, licensees, and consumers. Licensors have weird demands about everything from which subjects you have to make to what poses characters can have. Licensees have certain subjects they're good at, certain subjects they want to make, and others they don't want to or can't. Consumers want - everything. And not just one of everything, each one seems to want something different from every single subject, or three of every variant.
> 
> Imagine a universe where Bandai or Moebius or Round 2 could approach a licensor and say, "We want to build a model of the Seaview. Just the Seaview. How much do you want as your cut of the profits?" And have the suits say, "Sure, one Seaview, 10%, 20%, whatever." And then have a second company also say, "We want to build a Seaview, too." And that be possible. A Bandai Seaview. A Moebius Seaview. A Monogram Seaview. None of them would be the same. Maybe some would be better than the others. Maybe some would be different versions, different scales. Kind of like armor and aircraft and ships and autos and... oh, like every other kind of model. Competition. How many F16s or Me109s are there out there? Two or three 1701s or Vipers or Flying Subs in different scales from various manufacturers on various continents might even increase a subject's visibility and even increase sales, not cut into each other's. Even very, very obscure military kits show up from different manufacturers, sometimes simultaneously, and somehow they sell. Imagine if Alfred Wong could get legit permission to make an X-Wing. Maybe once in a while we'd get something that would satisfy most (never all) builders.


Couldn't agree more. Sci-fi licenses should be like licenses for car/aircraft/armour/etc, available to all model companies. Competition improves the product. When companies are made to compete with other companies for your business, not only the amount of product increases, so does the quality. If another company in the US also had the license for Star Trek, and were producing quality kits, R2 might rethink their approach to how they handle the license. Oh, well, we can only dream!


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

If there is so much demand for Star Trek kits, then why aren't the two companies that hold the rights (R2 and Revell Germany) pumping out new kits at the rate that Bandai has for Star Wars? I speculate that the answer is that sales of Star Trek kits are not as spectacular as some of us might think.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

modelsj said:


> AGAIN, being lovers of the art, imo it is more fun to scratch build what is needed and re-create the thing the way it was intended to be originally, at a much lower investment with the satisfaction you did it yourself


AGAIN, with the "do it yourself" response. Has it occurred to the "lovers of the art" that not many of us have the time, money, equipment, skill, energy, and more time and more energy... to scratch-build? For the majority of us that is simply not possible! And one need not scratch-build to make something the way "it was intended," especially since there's really no such animal anyway. I am more than happy with a fairly accurate kit that is engineered well and has a modicum of research behind it. I'm anal, but not insane.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

I was being a bit facetious when I suggested that Gary should become a garage kit producer himself, but a few minutes later, I thought: Why not?
An incredibly talented modeller, Vincent Meens, is going just that with with his Lunar Module. It's available at Shapeways in various scales:
http://spacemodels.nuxit.net/
tho' prohibitively expensive for mere mortals. Seems the more popular Shapeways gets, the more expensive it becomes. Who was saying what about competition?

And if Gary feels that the C&Ds would be just too much hassle, printing simple models like the Galileo might be an practical alternative for actual manufacturers. No tooling costs. Available in a variety of scales, which would also be good for people who want to mix scales with a 1/24 exterior and a 1/32 interior (don't lie, I know you're out there). 

Do it yourself is a hugely valid response. Whenever I hear that it takes too much time, I'm not good enough/talented enough, I always think, if people spent half the time they spend on forums, actually building, they'd both have the time to build and and the time to develop the skills to make just about whatever they want, and built however they want it.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> AGAIN, with the "do it yourself" response. Has it occurred to the "lovers of the art" that not many of us have the time, money, equipment, skill, energy, and more time and more energy... to scratch-build? For the majority of us that is simply not possible! And one need not scratch-build to make something the way "it was intended," especially since there's really no such animal anyway. I am more than happy with a fairly accurate kit that is engineered well and has a modicum of research behind it. I'm anal, but not insane.


It's comments like this that make me wish ol' Griffworks hadn't banned David Merriman. He'd have a field day with *this* one.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

starseeker said:


> Do it yourself is a hugely valid response. Whenever I hear that it takes too much time, I'm not good enough/talented enough, I always think, if people spent half the time on forums actually building, they'd both have the time and develop the skills to build just aboput whatever they want, however they want it.


You're perfectly entitled to buy the 3D equipment required to scratch-build whatever your heart desires. But please don't speak for everyone and what they could or should do, or what time and money or skills they possess or can or cannot develop. I will opt for the kit, and then I will spend the time complaining when after years of promises it gets cancelled.


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

They never actually said it was cancelled, just that they weren't going to do it now or look at it for the near future. There is still the possibility of it becoming a reality in the future - a shame we won't get it anytime soon.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

starseeker said:


> Seems the more popular Shapeways gets, the more expensive it becomes. Who was saying what about competition?


The difference in the cost of a 3D printed kit (or resin for that matter) vs a styrene version of the same kit is _not_ an apples to apples comparison. A styrene Galileo would cost a lot less then a 3D kit. I'll wait for (hopefully) a styrene version. Some of us are not independently wealthy.



starseeker said:


> Do it yourself is a hugely valid response. Whenever I hear that it takes too much time, I'm not good enough/talented enough, I always think, if people spent half the time they spend on forums, actually building, they'd both have the time to build and and the time to develop the skills to make just about whatever they want, and built however they want it.


Proper2's responses to this line of thought is spot on. Personally, I'm tired of people telling the rest of us to just shut up and scratchbuild the item ourselves. How I spend my time is my business, not yours.


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

As much as I admire someone who can scratchbuild everything I myself am too lazy and don't want to spend the extra time to do it myself. I would much rather have the detail already included or at least have the aftermarket supply it. Doesn't make me or any other modeler who doesn't scratchbuild a bad person- this is a hobby and we are allowed to build as we please without any judgement.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

scooke123 said:


> As much as I admire someone who can scratchbuild everything I myself am too lazy and don't want to spend the extra time to do it myself. I would much rather have the detail already included or at least have the aftermarket supply it. Doesn't make me or any other modeler who doesn't scratchbuild a bad person- this is a hobby and we are allowed to build as we please without any judgement.


:thumbsup:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

I posted a response on the R2 Collector Model Blog today and Jamie responded:

_*Me:*
Now that the Galileo is off the table for the time being, are there any new-tool kits planned for 2016? Being that it’s the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek, wouldn’t R2 want to take advantage of it?
Over at a forum I frequent, a lot of people are upset with R2 promising yet another highly desired Star Trek kit only to cancel it a year or so later. Also, they feel R2 under utilizes the Star Trek license since few new-tool Trek kits have been produced since 2008 (7 kits in 8 years). Of course, just how many kits are enough is open to interpretation!
Guess my point is this, while I understand where R2 is coming from, a lot of folks feel like R2 has let them down regarding new Star Trek kits. You say that: *“We still have a lot we can and want to do with the Star Trek license!”* I guess the question a lot of people are asking is: “If that’s how you and R2 feel, why aren’t there more new-tool Star Trek kits?”. People are hoping for more, especially this being the 50th Anniversary year._

*Jamie Hood:
Answering this one directly “If that’s how you and R2 feel, why aren’t there more new-tool Star Trek kits?” The simple answer is this is an unusually tight year for us. It is unfortunate that it also happens to also be the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. I wish the anniversary had come four years ago, then our timing would have been perfect.
I would LOVE to do more. I’d LOVE to do a 1:350 K’t’inga, a 1:1000 Enterprise D and many more. There is only so much I can do and only so much our company can do. Could someone else do more? Who is really to know?
Btw, I haven’t kept up with the discussions that I’m sure are out there, but the comments being posted here (i.e. Collector Model Blog) have been for the most part very gracious and understanding. I understand the sentiment out on other forums has been pretty similar. I personally really appreciate that kind of response to what I know is a huge disappointment for so many.*

So, it doesn't sound like much will be done this year regarding Star Trek. Jamie would love to do more, but business priorities this year won't allow it. Doesn't sound like they don't care to me.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

The impression I get is that within the conglomeration that is Round 2, Jamie has power but not that much 'juice', and must bow to TPTB, fighting for whatever operating budget he can get. 

Hey, OK, maybe Jamie is like the NASA circa the 1970s. Maximizing what he can with what he can get. 

It's regretful the corporate heads don't see the value of making a push for Trek's 50th anny.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

scooke123 said:


> They never actually said it was cancelled, just that they weren't going to do it now or look at it for the near future. There is still the possibility of it becoming a reality in the future - a shame we won't get it anytime soon.


Yeah, that's what I get too. We can't have it now but the door ISN'T forever closed. Again, timing is regretful but it is what it is. 

Delays can be worth it. Little story, there's an anime series called Giant Gorg that would likely be of interest to some of the folk here. It's old fashioned action-adventure with a SF touch, not impossible robots flying in space blowing up planets. I wrote about it on my blog:

http://tochiro998.livejournal.com/21263.html

Warning, I'm speaking anime shorthand, it's probably mostly incomprehensible to a non-fan of the subject. 

There was an attempt to bring Giant Gorg to America back in 2003, which was aborted due to poor masters to duplicate from. Also, the market was on the verge of complete collapse, which hit in 2006, so something as old as Gorg just wasn't marketable. 

Over a decade later a new company (a growing boutique video company called Discotek) somehow worked some mojo and took a chance on releasing Giant Gorg, and they did a really beautiful job. But Discotek couldn't have taken that chance if they hadn't built up their reputation and business. 

Things can happen if the people are invested in it. Jamie does sound invested in the Galileo, he's not being allowed to move it forward. So, maybe let's cut the guy some slack. I mean, things can change. Look how fast tracked that 22" Eagle was.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Steve H said:


> Wouldn't that be something? A kit even better than the 1/350, in a more reasonable size and pricepoint.


Yes it would be something -- _impossible_!

---------------


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

spock62 said:


> So, it doesn't sound like much will be done this year regarding Star Trek. Jamie would love to do more, but business priorities this year won't allow it. Doesn't sound like they don't care to me.


That's how this reads to me.

Producing new kits is expensive, and if this is indeed a tight year for R2, I can understand why they went with the Eagle instead. One base kit can easily be expanded, and the "accessory market" potential for it is considerably greater as well.

Personally, much as I'd like an accurate Galileo, I'd rather wait a bit and have R2 in better financial shape. That way we can eventually get the Galileo and maybe some other nice 1/350 kits in the future, rather than R2 bank everything on it now, have it underperform, and become even more gunshy in the future.

It's disappointing having to wait, but if it ultimately means we don't get a cut-down version and a better chance at seeing a wider range of product in the future, I'm OK with it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve H said:


> The impression I get is that within the conglomeration that is Round 2, Jamie has power but not that much 'juice', and must bow to TPTB, fighting for whatever operating budget he can get.


He's got to be miserable over there. If Dave Metzner retired from Moebius Models on Thursday Jamie Hood would be on the phone to Frank Winspur on Friday.

Not that Dave is going anywhere!


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

It would just be so much better for everyone if nothing was announced or communicated until it's a done deal, say, when wholesalers can order them, maybe. I've never understood who benefits when sketchy plans are announced, and to be fair, it's not just Round 2 or model companies. Any talk at all creates expectations. Presented as a survey is different because it's clear these are just ideas. But once you start talking decisions, any kind of progress, showing CAD drawings and the like, well, it's gonna happen, right?


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I think phicks hit the nail on the head. Bandai released 22 new Star Wars kits in just over a year and have four more on the way. I know this is apple's and oranges, but maybe the market for Trek isn't what we think it is anymore.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

FWIW, Bandai actually did some Star Trek kits a few years ago.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

spock62 said:


> I wish the anniversary had come four years ago, then our timing would have been perfect.


In other words, pre-employee embezzlement.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

seaQuest said:


> In other words, pre-employee embezzlement.


Wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be a big part of the issue.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

spock62 said:


> Proper2's responses to this line of thought is spot on. Personally, I'm tired of people telling the rest of us to just shut up and scratchbuild the item ourselves. How I spend my time is my business, not yours.


I'm sorry. Old habits die hard. I keep forgetting that over the last decade or so this has become mostly a Talking About the Idea of Modelling Forum, not a Model Building Forum. There are people here with maybe a 1000 posts from whom it would be nice to see a model or a even work in progress once in a while. Or even once a year. No, don't actually build anything. Just keep posting. Is it any wonder that R2 is stalled with the Galileo or even that the hobby itself seems near its last legs?


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

starseeker said:


> I'm sorry. Old habits die hard. I keep forgetting that over the last decade or so this has become mostly a Talking About the Idea of Modelling Forum, not a Model Building Forum. There are people here with maybe a 1000 posts from whom it would be nice to see a model or a even work in progress once in a while. Or even once a year. No, don't actually build anything. Just keep posting. Is it any wonder that R2 is stalled with the Galileo or even that the hobby itself seems near its last legs?


Nah, we buy plenty of models... building them, not as much.

For the record: I have purchased both the 1/1000 Reliant and the 1/350 TOS Romulan that have been released since the Galileo journey began (not to mention 3 TOS Galacticas and a bunch of Bandai SW kits).


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

starseeker said:


> I keep forgetting that over the last decade or so this has become mostly a Talking About the Idea of Modelling Forum, not a Model Building Forum.


The man has a point. _Mea culpa._ Off to build something.

Okay ... "assemble" something.  (H/T Merriman.)


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

starseeker said:


> I'm sorry. Old habits die hard. I keep forgetting that over the last decade or so this has become mostly a Talking About the Idea of Modelling Forum, not a Model Building Forum. There are people here with maybe a 1000 posts from whom it would be nice to see a model or a even work in progress once in a while. Or even once a year. No, don't actually build anything. Just keep posting. Is it any wonder that R2 is stalled with the Galileo or even that the hobby itself seems near its last legs?


I build. I don't feel the quality of what I work on is really up to what others post here. I'm also completely inept with the whole posting pictures via outside source thing, helper post up top notwithstanding. 

So, guilty, I suppose.


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

Just wanted to say that the idea that Round 2 is "Sitting on" the license for Trek is ridiculous. If another company wanted the license they could out-bid them for it (just like Bandai did with Star Wars). But... no one else wants it.
As others have pointed out, Revell tried their hand at Trek, but won't make any more because the sales aren't there. Revell said so themselves (I think someone posted the email on this forum somewhere). Bandai made some Trek models too a few years back. Why didn't they make any more?
Star Trek, though popular, just doesn't sell as well as some of you think it does. It's a sad fact that the fans should acknowledge. Round 2 only does what they do BECAUSE they already have the molds. If they were like Moebius, making all their kits from scratch, then there would hardly be any Trek models out there at all.
This has been discussed ad nauseam here. Sci-fi is a small niche within the modeling community, and Star Trek is a niche within that. Why spend money on a sci-fi kit that may do well sales-wise, when you can just re-pop a 1960's car model that's been a PROVEN seller for decades. It's a no brainer business decision, and one that I agree with. Round 2 now has an immense catalog of models, and it would be fool hardy to spend all their development dollars for a particular year on a niche product.
I am a Trek fan, I own/build a lot of Trek models, but I would NOT have bought that flying brick. It holds zero interest for me. A Speed-boat shuttle from Voyager would get my interest though, I like that design!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

TIEbomber1967 said:


> I am a Trek fan, I own/build a lot of Trek models, but I would NOT have bought that flying brick. It holds zero interest for me. A Speed-boat shuttle from Voyager would get my interest though, I like that design!


I'm much more of a TOS fan than a Trek fan. As fas as I'm concerned, every ship from TOS is an iconic and historic must have. This includes the " flying brick." Touché. So, as far as models go, I couldn't care less about a Voyager "speed boat" (I don't even know what that looks like since I never watched Voyager), just as I don't care about the Eagle, a stiff design whose movement in flight looks as graceful as an 18-wheeler negotiating a tight turn. Touché.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

SteveR said:


> The man has a point. _Mea culpa._ Off to build something.
> 
> Okay ... "assemble" something.  (H/T Merriman.)


David's a pill.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

TIEbomber1967 said:


> Why spend money on a sci-fi kit that may do well sales-wise, when you can just re-pop a 1960's car model that's been a PROVEN seller for decades.


Good point. Indeed, why manufacture sci-fi models at all? Unless you're talking Star Wars it's obviously a bad business to be in. Fool hardy Moebius! Fool hardy Pegasus! Don't you know you're catering to a niche market? On behalf of the Sci-Fi Modeling Forum, please stop spending your development dollars making awesome but financially risky Sci-Fi kits! 

And while we're on the subject of Lost Sci-Fi-Related Causes, memo to Hollywood: The movie "Inception" was an artistic and financial triumph BUT a very risky one! In the future, please restrict your development dollars to sequels, prequels and reboots. Preferably of superhero franchises. They're much, much safer (see previous post: re: the financial reliability of that boring-but-safe 1960's car model repop).



It is a sad state of affairs when a modeling forum devolves into an indictment of the very product it exists to celebrate. Then again, I actually build a lot of sci-fi models. So yeah, maybe my viewpoint is compromised by a weakness for what we all now know to be an unprofitable and Fool Hardy genre. 



TIEbomber1967 said:


> I would NOT have bought that flying brick. It holds zero interest for me.


Dude, you buried the lead.

And yeah, let’s hear it for the “speedboat shuttle”…



…over the “flying brick.”…



Because, as cool designs go, the works of Raymond Lowey and Matt Jefferies have not withstood the test of time.


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

Proper2 said:


> I'm much more of a TOS fan than a Trek fan. As fas as I'm concerned, every ship from TOS is an iconic and historic must have. This includes the " flying brick." Touché. So, as far as models go, I couldn't care less about a Voyager "speed boat" (I don't even know what that looks like since I never watched Voyager), just as I don't care about the Eagle, a stiff design whose movement in flight looks as graceful as an 18-wheeler negotiating a tight turn. Touché.


That's fine. I have to no problem with your personal preferences.
What I've said is not a personal attack. If you believe it is, that's your problem.
I don't care about the Eagle either, by the way. Not a 1999 fan.


----------



## modelsj (May 12, 2004)

Wow, pretty touchy forum. What I should have said was:I enjoy making up for lack and enjoy more of a challenge, but the older I get the more I would appreciate a complete kit and understand the time constraint of others in wanting a more complete kit


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

modelsj said:


> Wow, pretty touchy forum.


It may be acrimonious, but at least this thread has people posting on HT more. For a while it was mostly crickets when I would check in to see what was happening.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Carson, Pegasus needs to be more diligent when engineering their kits. For a ship with simple lines, the large Luna wasn't so great. The fit of the wings is lousy and the stabilizing leg is no help. Unless you sit the ship on the base just so, it won't even touch the surface. If I knew that going in, I would've added BBs to the tail.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

seaQuest said:


> Carson, Pegasus needs to be more diligent when engineering their kits. For a ship with simple lines, the large Luna wasn't so great. The fit of the wings is lousy and the stabilizing leg is no help.


What am I, Customer Service? 

I've yet to crack open my Luna kit, so I'll withhold any opinion. The other Pegasus kits I've built -- the Arc, both Martian War Machines, Vermithrax, the Terminator kits, that... all awesome. And that new Randy Cooper Mars Rover kit is insane!

The thing with companies like Moebius and Pegasus, they're run by guys who appreciate sci-fi. Yes, despite the fact that it's a niche market that underperforms relative to, say, the automotive or military markets, guys like Frank and Larry will still figure out ways of bringing obscure George Pal and Irwin Allen kits to market. Why? Because they love them!


----------



## tedkitus (Jun 19, 2008)

It's unfortunate that the kit is not coming to market. It sounds like they made a business decision based on available resources, what they have in the pipeline, and money. Maybe they'll reconsider making the kit someday if they think it's worth it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

tedkitus said:


> Maybe they'll reconsider making the kit someday if they think it's worth it.


We'll never see a Galileo kit from Round 2. Jamie's "maybe some day" comments are just his way of softening the blow and neutralizing criticism. 2016 is TOS's 50th anniversary, the most market-friendly window R2 is ever going to get. If they don't have the desire or resources to launch this baby now they never will.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Carson Dyle said:


> We'll never see a Galileo kit from Round 2. Jamie's "maybe some day" comments are just his way of softening the blow and neutralizing criticism. 2016 is TOS's 50th anniversary, the most market-friendly window R2 is ever going to get. If they don't have the desire or resources to launch this baby now they never will.


True. This really does feel like an election year all around!


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

Carson Dyle said:


> 2016 is TOS's 50th anniversary, the most market-friendly window R2 is ever going to get.


This seems rather silly.

If there's a Trek modeler market for it, they'll buy it whenever it comes out if it is a subject they want. A nice round anniversary might make for a fun bit of additional fanfare, but it is unlikely make a difference to the bottom line either way given the target audience.

Further, anyone not already in the market for such a kit won't suddenly be swayed by a round anniversary date if they weren't otherwise inclined before.

In short, it doesn't matter. Anyone who is inclined to want it already does, and won't suddenly stop being interested just because it ends up being the "50th + n" anniversary when the model finally does get released.

I've never met a modeler who was more interested in modeling anniversaries than actual subjects themselves.

All of that aside, in this specific case, we have to accept that Sci-Fi is a niche market, Trek is a further niche within that, TOS is an even smaller subset of Trek, and the Galileo cuts that down even further.

It's a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche market. Even if the appeal of Space 1999 is less than that of Trek overall, at least an Eagle kit is only one step removed from "Sci-Fi". That alone probably gives it a wider potential market than the Galileo's slice of a slice of a slice of a slice. 

I'd love to see the Galileo done. I'd probably even buy one. I've certainly got more interest in it than I do the Eagle. But even so, I'm inclined to agree with R2's take on this one.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

So is it time we all just "shuttle" off to Buffalo about this?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

FlyingBrickyard said:


> I've never met a modeler who was more interested in modeling anniversaries than actual subjects themselves.


Of course not. It's Marketing 101... sales of any given subject are likely to be at their most robust during a period of heightened awareness, a la a 50th anniversary. The difference in this instance may well have been negligible, but it's doubtful that releasing a Star Trek model in 2016 would've have hurt sales. Round 2 has acknowledged as much.



FlyingBrickyard said:


> All of that aside, in this specific case, we have to accept that Sci-Fi is a niche market.


Yes. We've established that. Repeatedly. No one is arguing otherwise. I've never advanced the theory that producing sci-fi models is a sure-fire way to get rich quick. Even so, within the sci-fi niche market, Star Trek is a more popular and marketable property than most. Would a Galileo have outsold the Eagle? Under the circumstances I rather doubt it, but we'll never know. And in any case, this isn't (or shouldn't be) a contest between the Galileo and the Eagle.

My beef isn't that R2 chose to make a really awesome Eagle kit. Go Round 2! My beef is that R2 owns the rights to Star Trek, but they don't seem very interested in tooling Star Trek kits. I get the reasons, it's all about the bottom line, but speaking as a longtime Star Trek modeler, and within the context of a sci-fi modeling forum, it's disappointing to see so beloved and high-profile a franchise (within an admittedly niche market) go to waste.


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> We'll never see a Galileo kit from Round 2. Jamie's "maybe some day" comments are just his way of softening the blow and neutralizing criticism. 2016 is TOS's 50th anniversary, the most market-friendly window R2 is ever going to get. If they don't have the desire or resources to launch this baby now they never will.


I seem to remember not all that long ago there was doubt expressed by some about ever seeing an accurate eagle ever produced. Never might be a bit strong.

Not saying your wrong, but I have a hard time seeing how the 50th Anniversary would really bring all that many more Galileo buyers (who wouldn't buy the kit otherwise). Is there that much promotion of sci fi kits these days outside forums, blogs, manufacturer website, and of course on shelf?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Not just model kits, but most of the companies licensed for Star Trek seem to be treating the 50th Anniversary in a second hand manner- the most I think we can reasonable expect is some new boxes printed up and some special covers for the books and DVD/BRs.

I will not be buying anything just because they made a special box or package for it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Sparky said:


> I seem to remember not all that long ago there was doubt expressed by some about ever seeing an accurate eagle ever produced.


Yes, and in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, that Eagle kit is nothing short of a minor miracle. And while I'm neither an Eagle fan nor a Space 1999 buff, I'm thrilled my fellow modeler have such an awesome sci-fi kit to build. Kudos to everyone at R2 who played a part in bringing the model to market.

That said, I have lost my faith in R2 when it comes to Trek. At least in terms of seeing a Galileo, or a 1/350 Klingon Cruiser, or anything requiring serious tooling. Obviously management is very bottom-line, the numbers don't make sense to them, and the price of materials and tooling ain't getting any cheaper. If they haven't done it by now they aren't going to. IMHO.

But, hey, I'd LOVE to be proven wrong!


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> What am I, Customer Service?
> 
> I've yet to crack open my Luna kit, so I'll withhold any opinion. The other Pegasus kits I've built -- the Arc, both Martian War Machines, Vermithrax, the Terminator kits, that... all awesome. And that new Randy Cooper Mars Rover kit is insane!
> 
> The thing with companies like Moebius and Pegasus, they're run by guys who appreciate sci-fi. Yes, despite the fact that it's a niche market that underperforms relative to, say, the automotive or military markets, guys like Frank and Larry will still figure out ways of bringing obscure George Pal and Irwin Allen kits to market. Why? Because they love them!


You ever been out to Pegasus Hobbies? That place is insane! It's like The Home Depot for hobbies.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> True. This really does feel like an election year all around!


Don't discuss politics.
*Zing!*


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yes, and in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, that Eagle kit is nothing short of a minor miracle. And while I'm neither an Eagle fan nor a Space 1999 buff, I'm thrilled my fellow modeler have such an awesome sci-fi kit to build. Kudos to everyone at R2 who played a part in bringing the model to market.
> 
> That said, I have lost my faith in R2 when it comes to Trek. At least in terms of seeing a Galileo, or a 1/350 Klingon Cruiser, or anything requiring serious tooling. Obviously management is very bottom-line, the numbers don't make sense to them, and the price of materials and tooling ain't getting any cheaper. If they haven't done it by now they aren't going to. IMHO.
> 
> But, hey, I'd LOVE to be proven wrong!


Science fiction modelers are a bizarre lot (sometimes more bizarre that what I run into at San Diego Comic Con every year). You give them an inch, they'll take an AU. When Frank announced he was producing a Battlestar Galactica from the original series in the Monogram scale (1/4105), folks were all, like, "Great! After that, can we get a Galactica that's 39 inches long?" (apparently taking the length of the Moebius Seaview kits as the guideline). That would've been bigger than Mike Salzo's resin kit! Y'know?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Carson Dyle said:


> That said, I have lost my faith in R2 when it comes to Trek. At least in terms of seeing a Galileo, or a 1/350 Klingon Cruiser, or anything requiring serious tooling. Obviously management is very bottom-line, the numbers don't make sense to them, and the price of materials and tooling ain't getting any cheaper. If they haven't done it by now they aren't going to. IMHO.
> 
> But, hey, I'd LOVE to be proven wrong!


Have faith... maybe for the 100th anniversary they'll have it back in the works. :tongue:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

seaQuest said:


> You ever been out to Pegasus Hobbies? That place is insane! It's like The Home Depot for hobbies.


Oh, yeah. I go at least once a year -- usually around Christmas time. Larry is one of my favorite people in the hobby biz.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

seaQuest said:


> You ever been out to Pegasus Hobbies? That place is insane! It's like The Home Depot for hobbies.


It even has its own Google Maps Street View ... inside!

Link!


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

SteveR said:


> It even has its own Google Maps Street View ... inside!
> 
> Link!


Very cool. It's walking distance from where I grew up but I've never been (wasn't there back then).


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

I understand this was a business decision, and sometimes things happen, but I would hope that money wasn't their only calculation. Because a business that promises a product and then fails to follow through and disappoints customers, well, that reflects badly on the business. Sure, this is just a semi-obscure sci-fi kit, but for most businesses their reputation matters. It should. There is no way Round 2 can make another announcement about an upcoming product without it now being received with a heavy dose of skepticism -- if not outright mockery. So I hope that was part of the 'cost' of this business decision.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I understand this was a business decision, and sometimes things happen, but I would hope that money wasn't their only calculation.* Because a business that promises a product and then fails to follow through and disappoints customers, well, that reflects badly on the business. *Sure, this is just a semi-obscure sci-fi kit, but for most businesses their reputation matters. It should. There is no way Round 2 can make another announcement about an upcoming product without it now being received with a heavy dose of skepticism -- if not outright mockery. So I hope that was part of the 'cost' of this business decision.


Thank you. At least someone gets it.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I understand this was a business decision, and sometimes things happen, but I would hope that money wasn't their only calculation. Because a business that promises a product and then fails to follow through and disappoints customers, well, that reflects badly on the business. Sure, this is just a semi-obscure sci-fi kit, but for most businesses their reputation matters. It should. There is no way Round 2 can make another announcement about an upcoming product without it now being received with a heavy dose of skepticism -- if not outright mockery. So I hope that was part of the 'cost' of this business decision.


Kudos, well said! Someone should forward this message to Jaimie or whoever needs to read it at R2.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> Kudos, well said! Someone should forward this message to Jaimie or whoever needs to read it at R2.


None of this is news to Jamie or P2. It may be news to PL apologists, but not to PL management.


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

Hunk A Junk said:


> There is no way Round 2 can make another announcement about an upcoming product without it now being received with a heavy dose of skepticism -- if not outright mockery. So I hope that was part of the 'cost' of this business decision.


Not that I disagree, but this is hardly the first time Round 2 has done this. There are multiple threads on this forum filled with arguments from when they cancelled the JJ-Prise, and when they cancelled the Akira. And that's just their Trek line. 

It's all happened before, it'll all happen again.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Wow, I step away for a bit and the Galileo bites the dust, bummer! Worse still is I sold my archive Galileo kit for peanuts in anticipation of getting the new Round 2 kit. Sucks to be me!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Tiberious said:


> Wow, I step away for a bit and the Galileo bites the dust, bummer! Worse still is I sold my archive Galileo kit for peanuts in anticipation of getting the new Round 2 kit. Sucks to be me!


Never assume anything with R2 until it gets on the shelves- even sprue shots hold no promise (they had the NuTOS-E that far along until it was cancelled).


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Prologic9 said:


> Not that I disagree, but this is hardly the first time Round 2 has done this. There are multiple threads on this forum filled with arguments from when they cancelled the JJ-Prise, and when they cancelled the Akira. And that's just their Trek line.
> 
> It's all happened before, it'll all happen again.


Exactly. I was also thinking of their Alien line. Wasn't a Sulaco supposed to be coming? Didn't they print posters saying it was "Coming Soon"? I had dreams of possibly finally getting a Nostromo kit, but I guess that ain't happening.

I don't mean to beat them up because I really do accept that unexpected things happen. Sales can be softer than predicted, etc. I'm glad we got the Eagle and even the 12" Forbidden Planet kit (though I'm not sure why they thought that would be a bigger seller than the Galileo). The problem, however, isn't that 'things happen.' It's that someone high up is telling Jamie and the other people at the company, "Sure, go ahead and announce a product," and then feels no remorse about pulling the plug later. That's just bad and disengaged management. If you aren't 100% sure it's going to happen, don't make the promise. Certainly don't make your employees look like fools by going to Wonferfest and boasting about all the cool stuff you've got coming. If you make the promise and don't follow through, don't be surprise when people are pissed. They seem to have done better with the Eagle kit. They didn't announce it years in advance -- they just sprung it on us after the kit was well along and heading into production. It was a good product and a nice surprise! I think the problem is the company wanted to project the impression that they had an ambitious release schedule for kits (look at the way their website is laid out with yearly releases) but the 'impression' wasn't sustainable. Hopefully it's lesson learned. Focus on quality kits. Don't promise what you aren't 100% sure you can deliver. Treat your customers with respect. Winning back a customer is more expensive than keeping them happy in the first place.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

*Oh for pete's sake*

For crying out loud people, chillax! Round 2 isn't saying the kit is dead, it's just in hibernation until they can get their affairs in order. It means we have to wait a little longer for that kit. Fine, so we'll wait.

I can't believe the amount of entitlement I'm reading in some of these responses. Sentiments like "Round 2 is sitting on the Trek license" or implications that Round 2 doesn't know how to run a business. It blows my mind that people seem to forget how much Round 2 has gone out of their way to produce or reproduce some pretty amazing Trek kits, including the 350 TOS Enterprise. Let us also remember that while they have repopped many kits, they've gone out of their way to make corrections to them. Just look at the amount of work they are putting into the Excelsior rerelease to make it more accurate. If AMT/ERTL were still running the show, all we'd get would be an oversized box half-full of plastic pieces that would require a boat-load of customizing. Round 2 has bent over backwards to please Star Trek fans.

Also, keep in mind: these are models which, by themselves would be for a very specific market. On top of that, these are models for a science fiction series that is waning in popularity. As a high school English teacher I can attest to the fact that a vast majority of my students have no idea who Spock is. This would've been unheard of 20 years ago. Regardless of the JJ Abrams films, the Star Trek we all know and love (from the 1960s series through the early 2000s) is a phenom that has waned in the eyes of the general public and is going nearly completely unnoticed by the younger crowd. In other words, Trek fandom is aging itself out. An aging fan base is not exactly a great market to make a huge profit if you are trying to save your company from the financial hardship created by an embezzlement scheme. I can only guess that they are going with the Space:1999 ship because it's cheaper to produce than the Galileo. Pouring a ton of cash into the development of a new kit (like the Galileo) that would have a rather limited fan base doesn't make sense when applying even the most basic economic principles. Sorry to burst the bubble of all the Galileo fans, but I've been a fan of Trek all my life and I'm more excited about more 1:1000 scale ships than I am a kit of the TOS shuttlecraft which will likely run in excess of $50. There may be a lot of demand for such a kit on these forums, but I see no evidence that the average sci-fi model builder is wanting this kit above all others.

Galileo will happen eventually. Just give Round 2 time to get back on their feet. The Excelsior repop is going to be a great kit and I wouldn't be surprised if it because a high demand kit solely based on the poor reputation of the original. I am thrilled to have another 1:1000 scale ship to add to my collection and I'm sure I'm not alone.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

What you said GSaum, but with a little addition. Model kit builders are also aging out, along with Trek fandom. Let's face it, with Boomers moving into their geriatric years (I myself am on the tail end, born in 63'), the styrene kit business will be losing a majority of its consumers in the US in the not-too-distant future. Kit production will continue in other countries, like Japan, where it's more ingrained, but I imagine the US will almost literally be a dead market. That's why people are sounding warning bells about producing certain licenses, especially ones related to the 60's/70's, while the consumers that would be interested are still around. We are, for the most part, the Famous Monsters/Star Trek/Gerry Anderson/Model Building Generation, and we're starting to wane. If folks want to produce and sell certain items to that generation, then they'd best get a move on!


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

GSaum said:


> For crying out loud people, chillax!
> 
> Galileo will happen eventually.


To RB's important point below, we don't have the luxury of time to "chillax!" We are aging Boomers!



RB said:


> Model kit builders are also aging out, along with Trek fandom. Let's face it, with Boomers moving into their geriatric years (I myself am on the tail end, born in 63'), the styrene kit business will be losing a majority of its consumers in the US in the not-too-distant future. Kit production will continue in other countries, like Japan, where it's more ingrained, but I imagine the US will almost literally be a dead market. That's why people are sounding warning bells about producing certain licenses, especially ones related to the 60's/70's, while the consumers that would be interested are still around. We are, for the most part, the Famous Monsters/Star Trek/Gerry Anderson/Model Building Generation, and we're starting to wane. If folks want to produce and sell certain items to that generation, then they'd best get a move on!


Great point!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

GSaum said:


> I can't believe the amount of entitlement I'm reading in some of these responses. .


You’re confusing a sense of entitlement with a sense of frustration. PL doesn’t owe me anything, but as others have pointed out, it’s bad business to repeatedly get your customers hopes up re: models that never happen. 



GSaum said:


> Round 2 has gone out of their way to produce or reproduce some pretty amazing Trek kits, including the 350 TOS Enterprise.


I think we can all agree that the 1/350 Enterprise is an awesome kit. Kudos to R2 for going “out of its way” to produce an original Star Trek model. A bold and radical move for the company that owns the license to Star Trek models.



GSaum said:


> Also, keep in mind: these are models which, by themselves would be for a very specific market. .


Yes, yes, another reminder that there’s a dwindling market for Star Trek, and retro sci-fi kits in general. I was hoping someone would bring this up again.

Look, we’ve established (repeatedly) that sci-fi models are a niche market. We’ve also established that, counter-intuitively, we’re living in a golden age of sci-fi models in which manufacturers continue to bring sci-fi kits to market, and some pretty obscure ones at that (the Derelict?!). Point being, it is still possible to make and sell retro sci-fi kits. Niche market though it may be relative to other types of models (military, etc.), Star Trek is second only to Star Wars in terms of brand recognition and popularity. All claims to the contrary, it is not unreasonable for Star Trek modelers to voice their dissatisfaction with a company that owns the license to Star Trek models but is seemingly incapable or unwilling to produce original Star Trek models. Other than, you know, a couple per decade.

This is not an unhealthy or unreasonable sense of entitlement. This is a longtime Star Trek modeler (i.e. a guy who actually builds Star Trek kits) who’s voicing a legitimate complaint with R2’s performance, or lack thereof. Of course delays occur, and business setbacks are a fact of life. That’s not what this is about. My issue is that the company who owns the rights to Star Trek models has a terrible record producing Star Trek models. You may disagree, and that’s fine, but R2's record speaks for itself. 

R2 must be gratified to know there are so many Star Trek "modelers" who support their continued efforts to produce as few original Star Trek models as possible. On behalf of R2, thanks for continuing to make excuses on our behalf! Rest assured we'll continue our long tradition of re-popping old kits and posting announcements for new kits that will never get made.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

Just a little more...I think studios need to realize that, at least in terms of licensing for statues, figures, and models, that they'll be losing control soon with the advent of 3-D printers. There are companies that are currently selling relatively low-cost printers that produce small-scale prints with amazing detail and virtually no artifacting, at least to the naked eye. Like Solus here:

http://www.reify-3d.com/products/

As the print size grows every year and the costs come down, consumers will be able to design and print they're own high-quality collectibles on they're own, license-free. Modeling in the US won't end, but it will change. I'm sure there are going to *loads* of Aurora-style figures in the future, but sculpted on a computer and then printed out in the consumer's home. Vehicles too. And those who can't do digital sculpts on their own will probably be able to trade/buy those files from others, again with no need for studio licensing or a kit manufacturer. NOW is the time for companies with desirable licenses to put items on the market, ESPECIALLY model kits. Of course, these companies can still develop their own files, or have a company design and market them through a licensing deal. But they'll be competing with many potential customers who are using the new technology themselves. The only edge licensors will have is how accurate they make those files. But of course, consumers could then scan the print and make as many as they want...

I love styrene kits, have since I was a kid, and don't want to see them end. But change is inevitable. I'm not faulting Round 2, They couldn't make the numbers work this year which is a shame, and apparently no big kit for the 50th. But the Eagle was absolutely a smart move, striking while there's still an iron...


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Yeah, no sense of entitlement here. And honestly I don't care much about the Galileo because I did a major makeover of the AMT kit 12 years ago that still looks great and is super accurate. This is just about broken promises. Name any other business that announces a product and then fails to follow through and there would be the same reaction. If Apple were to announce a product and then suddenly cancel it because 'things happen,' it would mean a massive kick in the crotch to their stock, and rightly so. And, yes, were not talking iphones here, but the point still holds true. For my part, I'm not angry, but I am concerned when a modelmaker cancels an anticipated product. Especially at the same time we're getting kits from other companies for things like (as mentioned) the Derelict or the Interstellar ship. But somehow the Galileo is too obscure?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Hunk A Junk said:


> For my part, I'm not angry, but I am concerned when a modelmaker cancels an anticipated product. Especially at the same time we're getting kits from other companies for things like (as mentioned) the Derelict or the Interstellar ship. But somehow the Galileo is too obscure?


Exactly.

The cancellation of the Galileo doesn't make me "angry" either. But I am frustrated and disappointed with R2's seeming unwillingness to occasionally allocate funds for new tooling. This has been going on for years, and with no end in sight. The sad fact is the company that owns the rights to produce new Star Trek models is not motivated to do so because of the costs involved. Meanwhile, other companies with a hand in the sci-fi market are going to town like never before -- in some cases producing kits of subjects so obscure it boggles the imagination. And yet, after years of dithering, R2 can't bring itself to produce a 1/350 D7, K'Tinga, or Galileo? Maybe if I didn't actually build these types of things I wouldn't care either, but those of us who love modeling Trek have a valid reason to be frustrated.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Hunk A Junk said:


> This is just about broken promises. Name any other business that announces a product and then fails to follow through and there would be the same reaction.


Part 1 of what makes me _a little_ angry and _very_ frustrated and disappointed. 




Hunk A Junk said:


> Especially at the same time we're getting kits from other companies for things like (as mentioned) the Derelict or the Interstellar ship. But somehow the Galileo is too obscure?


Part 2.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

Carson Dyle said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Meanwhile, other companies with a hand in the sci-fi market are going to town like never before -- in some cases producing kits of subjects so obscure it boggles the imagination. And yet, after years of dithering, R2 can't bring itself to produce a 1/350 D7, K'Tinga, or Galileo?


Yeah, we've gotten a Destination Moon Luna (two!) and a Cosmostrator. It's definitely a strange thing to have those and not a Galileo...


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I wouldn't be surprised if it comes back as a smaller kit in the future. I thought it was a bit of a stretch making it that big anyway. 
They could do a 1/72 kit and it would probably be easier and cheaper for them It's only a small craft that doesn't have much external detail. They could make a perfectly good, accurate small kit.


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

Some of those other kits released by Pegasus, Moebius and Atlantis are rather basic kits - I'm sure R2 could have gave us a Galileo with 10 pieces and let it go at that. Its comparing apples to oranges in amount of detail they offer.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Carson Dyle said:


> The cancellation of the Galileo doesn't make me "angry" either. But I am frustrated and disappointed with R2's seeming unwillingness to occasionally allocate funds for new tooling. ...after years of dithering, R2 can't bring itself to produce a 1/350 D7, K'Tinga, or Galileo?


I'm of the same mind, disappointed but not angry. After all, I'd probably be willing to spend $50+ for a nice Galileo model and as much as $200 for an accurate 1/350 Klingon D7. The fact that I can't do that saves me too much money to be angry.

---------------


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

scooke123 said:


> Some of those other kits released by Pegasus, Moebius and Atlantis are rather basic kits - I'm sure R2 could have gave us a Galileo with 10 pieces and let it go at that. Its comparing apples to oranges in amount of detail they offer.


Yes, those are simpler kits, it's just the idea that they were kitted at all before a proper Galileo...not criticizing Jamie who we've been fortunate to have on our side. And he IS on our side...


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

*hibernate*

Funny, I check this forum every so often for one reason alone... The Galileo....
I can see that it will now be ok to delete this url from my favorites.
I've bought plenty of PL product over the years...Day one to be precise...when the kits were first sold as high priced exclusives in FAO Schwartz stores. been a member of this forum since pre-crash when everyone's join date was reset....yup... time to move on....


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

SUNGOD said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if it comes back as a smaller kit in the future. I thought it was a bit of a stretch making it that big anyway.
> They could do a 1/72 kit and it would probably be easier and cheaper for them It's only a small craft that doesn't have much external detail. They could make a perfectly good, accurate small kit.


If they do that, I personally would boycott them and never go back! After delivering a long-awaited 1:350 Enterprise, and then for the 50th anny promising the moon in the form of the long-awaited second most iconic TOS vehicle, and at the size it deserves, to throw us a scrap of a quickie small scale pop kit because it would be cheaper and easier for them? Since when is the easy road the best road? It would be a stretch making it that big? Are you kidding? Please!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

scooke123 said:


> Some of those other kits released by Pegasus, Moebius and Atlantis are rather basic kits - I'm sure R2 could have gave us a Galileo with 10 pieces and let it go at that. Its comparing apples to oranges in amount of detail they offer.


Some of the kits you refer to are basic; others not so much. There's nothing basic about the upcoming Proteus, I can assure you. Some of the other kits in various pipelines -- subjects less well known than the Galileo -- are seriously complex. And then there's the Cooper Mars Hopper, a radically detailed model that's so obscure it was never even _in_ a movie or TV show.

It's not about the relative complexity or obscurity of the subject. It's about the level of commitment on the part of the kit manufacturer. Several of the companies you refer to continue to produce sci-fi kits far more complex and less well known than the Galileo.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Proper2 said:


> If they do that, I personally would boycott them and never go back! After delivering a long-awaited 1:350 Enterprise, and then for the 50th anny promising the moon in the form of the long-awaited second most iconic TOS vehicle, and at the size it deserves, to throw us a scrap of a quickie small scale pop kit because it would be cheaper and easier for them? Since when is the easy road the best road? It would be a stretch making it that big? Are you kidding? Please!





That might be the only way you'll get a newly tooled kit. I know it's annoying when a kit gets cancelled or put on the back burner. I'm really disappointed we'll probably never get that Cyclops kit Monarch showcased a couple of years ago but there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

I, for one, am not going to beat a dead horse about this. I would just like R2 to say to us, "We hear you. We're sorry. Lesson learned. We will be more careful about announcing kits in the future so we don't build up expectations we can't deliver on. And we will do our best to create new and high quality kits based on the Star Trek franchise." That's all I want from them. I don't want to rake people over the coals. I just finished the Eagle kit and it's a dream come true. It's the Eagle I've wanted since I was 10 years old. So I know R2 can deliver the goods when motivated. Build on that success, get back on track and everything will be cool.


----------



## GSaum (May 26, 2005)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I, for one, am not going to beat a dead horse about this. I would just like R2 to say to us, "We hear you. We're sorry. Lesson learned. We will be more careful about announcing kits in the future so we don't build up expectations we can't deliver on. And we will do our best to create new and high quality kits based on the Star Trek franchise." That's all I want from them. I don't want to rake people over the coals. I just finished the Eagle kit and it's a dream come true. It's the Eagle I've wanted since I was 10 years old. So I know R2 can deliver the goods when motivated. Build on that success, get back on track and everything will be cool.


The problem with your line of thinking is that you assume that Round 2 is somehow at fault for the delay in the Galileo. Have you not been paying attention? After they announced the Galileo, they took a big financial hit with an embezzlement scheme. Nothing they or any other company could've done about that.


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

Hopefully they'll make enough money off the Eagle to right their ship. As for a 1/72 Galileo, that seems unreasonably small to me--it would only be four or five inches long at best. If anything I would think they might at some point return to the idea of improving the original 1/35-ish tool--I've seen some decent modifications of that.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

JeffBond said:


> Hopefully they'll make enough money off the Eagle to right their ship. As for a 1/72 Galileo, that seems unreasonably small to me--it would only be four or five inches long at best. If anything I would think they might at some point return to the idea of improving the original 1/35-ish tool--I've seen some decent modifications of that.


1/72 puts a series of Federation Shuttlecraft on the table, both as kits and pre-paint 'model toys' ala some of their...what was the scale, 1/2800 or thereabouts? releases. I'd like a nice series of Shuttlecraft and maybe even a Runabout, wouldn't you?

I would be in favor of a slightly retooled AMT shuttlecraft as precursor to finally releasing the new-tool Galileo, following the same release model as the MPC Eagle and the new-tool 22" Eagle. I know this would simply kill some of our friends here but it seems one possible way to get the job done. Not that R2 will actually hear me or consider such a thing.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

never mind


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Tiberious said:


> Wow, I step away for a bit and the Galileo bites the dust, bummer! Worse still is I sold my archive Galileo kit for peanuts in anticipation of getting the new Round 2 kit. Sucks to be me!


Yeah, sorry you did that. Reminds me of the time I was in Amoeba Music. Amoeba is a huge warehouse-like store on Sunset in Hollywood next to the Cinerama Dome selling new and (mostly) used CDs, vinyl, and Blu-ray Discs/DVDs. Anyway, I get there and this guy is lugging a huge box to the buy counter. I look and see he's got every season of Buffy The Vampire Slayer in the box (among other stuff). So I says to him, I says, "You're going to go through Willow withdrawl." This was 8 years ago when Blu-ray had been introduced the previous year. He smiled and said that Buffy was going to be released on Blu-ray soon snd he'll buy it again on that format.

That was 2008, and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment has never released Buffy or Angel on Blu-ray.

I wonder if that guy ever re-bought the series on DVD or if he's still holding out for Blu-rays.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

GSaum said:


> The problem with your line of thinking is that you assume that Round 2 is somehow at fault for the delay in the Galileo. Have you not been paying attention? After they announced the Galileo, they took a big financial hit with an embezzlement scheme. Nothing they or any other company could've done about that.


People either forget or don't realize...Round 2 is a small business. Not just a small company, a small business. Practically mom-and-pop. They're nowhere near as big as either AMT or MPC was in their heydays. And they took s big hit from that secretary, sorry, administrative assistant, who embezzled thousands from the company. I don't have any idea how much (if any) she's paid back in restitution. But at last year's Wonderfest, they were thinking of crowdsourcing new tooling. And that's a whole other headache. You have to give your Kickstarter investors some kind of ROI to show for their simoleans. 

You remember the Space Command Kickstarter project a few years ago? The one where Marc Scott Zicree pulled a bait-and-switch on his producing partner, Doug Drexler? Drex brought me in, and I volunteered to line produce. (All the Kickstarter money was going toward sets, costumes, props, VFX, maybe craft service, I don't know. Production was supposed to start just 3 or 4 months after the Kickstarter closed. Well, Marc lost Drex (and myself along with him as well as several volunteers to the production) when he pulled out his "real" script for the 1st movie. Then production moved from the San Fernando Valley to the netherworld of Orange County. Marc finally began production about 18 months after the original start date. The first movie wrapped principal, the second went into production last I heard, and still no product to show. Meanwhile, Drex's other retro SF project, Matt Mercury, is available on DVD or download.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

JeffBond said:


> Hopefully they'll make enough money off the Eagle to right their ship. As for a 1/72 Galileo, that seems unreasonably small to me--it would only be four or five inches long at best. If anything I would think they might at some point return to the idea of improving the original 1/35-ish tool--I've seen some decent modifications of that.


Yes, exactly. Besides, Johnny Lightning already put out a couple of decent shuttlecrafts at about that 1:72 scale size. Granted, they're not great, just decent; somehow they got the windows all wrong. 1:32 or 1:35 would be ideal for the Galileo. Or, I should say, would have been, because I no longer believe it's ever gonna happen in my lifetime.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

seaQuest said:


> Yeah, sorry you did that. Reminds me of the time I was in Amoeba Music. Amoeba is a huge warehouse-like store on Sunset in Hollywood next to the Cinerama Dome selling new and (mostly) used CDs, vinyl, and Blu-ray Discs/DVDs. Anyway, I get there and this guy is lugging a huge box to the buy counter. I look and see he's got every season of Buffy The Vampire Slayer in the box (among other stuff). So I says to him, I says, "You're going to go through Willow withdrawl." This was 8 years ago when Blu-ray had been introduced the previous year. He smiled and said that Buffy was going to be released on Blu-ray soon snd he'll buy it again on that format.
> 
> That was 2008, and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment has never released Buffy or Angel on Blu-ray.
> 
> I wonder if that guy ever re-bought the series on DVD or if he's still holding out for Blu-rays.


It's possible he ripped all those DVDs to a couple of multi-TB hard drives. I know several anime fans who are doing this, thinking that it's a super way to save physical space and stuff. They're going to be crying bitter tears of shame when a lightning strike or a bad HD crash makes those files completely gone. 

I believe in physical media.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

seaQuest said:


> ...And they took s big hit from that secretary, sorry, administrative assistant, who embezzled thousands from the company.


I'd missed hearing about this until this thread, so I went looking for info.

Apparently it was about $360,000 in total.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

FlyingBrickyard said:


> I'd missed hearing about this until this thread, so I went looking for info.
> 
> Apparently it was about $360,000 in total.


*whistles* That's something like 2 new-tool kits. I have no way to gauge how much cleaning molds to re-pop a kit costs but that would have to be the value of several of those as well. 

yeesh.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

JeffBond said:


> Hopefully they'll make enough money off the Eagle to right their ship. As for a 1/72 Galileo, that seems unreasonably small to me--it would only be four or five inches long at best. If anything I would think they might at some point return to the idea of improving the original 1/35-ish tool--I've seen some decent modifications of that.





What about the 1/1000 ships? Are they too small?


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

In a few years, that story'll be as legendary as the Aurora molds-in-the-train-wreck story.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

seaQuest said:


> People either forget or don't realize...Round 2 is a small business. Not just a small company, a small business. Practically mom-and-pop.


Yeah, same deal with Moebius and Pegasus. They still manage to tool new kits for the subjects they license. Size has less to do with it than the question of how much money a given model manufacturer is willing to allocate for tooling. The more money a company spends on tooling the less money management takes home.

I've no doubt the embezzlement business didn't help matters, but R2's strategy of favoring re-pops and repackaging over newly-tooled kits goes back years. I mean, it took _ages_ for R2 to commit to a 1/350 Enterprise -- a sure thing sales-wise if ever there was one.

Face it, R2 would rather do anything with its Trek license than tool new Trek kits. I get it. It's a business decision. Still, as a Trek modeler, I don't have to like it, and I sure as hell don't have to be "grateful" for it.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, same deal with Moebius and Pegasus. They still manage to tool new kits for the subjects they license. Size has less to do with it than the question of how much money a given model manufacturer is willing to allocate for tooling. The more a money a company spends on tooling the less money management takes home.
> 
> I've no doubt the embezzlement business didn't help matters, but R2's strategy of favoring re-pops and repackaging over newly-tooled kits goes back years. I mean, it took _ages_ for R2 to commit to a 1/350 Enterprise -- a sure thing sales-wise if ever there was one.
> 
> Face it, R2 would rather do anything with its Trek license than tool new Trek kits. I get it. It's a business decision. Still, as a Trek modeler, I don't have to like it, and I sure as hell don't have to be "grateful" for it.


Yeah, I just don't get the doe-eyed, suck-up-to-R2 mentality.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> Yeah, I just don't get the doe-eyed, suck-up-to-R2 mentality.


Well, having been to Wondrfest a few times, and having spoken with Jamie, he's a good guy. I think he's in a tough position sometimes, having to make excuses for R2's decisions. I think some of the posters here may have met Jamie, gotten the same "good guy" vibe I did, and may be resentful of any criticism aimed at R2, misinterpreting it as a personal attack directed at Jamie. So, you know, they're basically defending R2 because they don't want to dis Jamie. And I can respect that.

At the same time, I think some of the "be grateful for all R2 has done for you" remarks are coming from people who don't build models, have no interest in seeing new Trek models tooled, think the Galileo is unworthy of R2's attentions, and could care less that the Trek model license is owned by a company that would rather not be bothered to make new Trek models. And those people can kiss my you-know-what.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

GSaum said:


> The problem with your line of thinking is that you assume that Round 2 is somehow at fault for the delay in the Galileo. Have you not been paying attention? After they announced the Galileo, they took a big financial hit with an embezzlement scheme. Nothing they or any other company could've done about that.


Okay, but the problem with your line of thinking is that despite the embezzlement scheme Round 2 STILL managed to release a new tool Eagle kit even though they had previously announced the Galileo. So the unexpected financial crunch meant they couldn't do both kits, fair enough, but they still made a choice and decided that their previous promise to customers was less important than the potential for higher profits from the Eagle. Was that a good business decision? Maybe. Probably. But it doesn't change the fact that their promise to customers was apparently optional.


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

And what people forget (Especially the R2 sympathizers) is that any company is in business to make money. They don't make these kits to be nice to us or be our friends or because they have good hearts. They give us kits because they want our money. That means the relationship is not one sided. So we have every right to demand what we want to buy with our hard earned dollars. Not what is easiest for them, or what's convenient to make or what they want us to buy. It is not a game of "Ooooh I wonder what R2 is going to be nice enough to let us buy". Produce what we want and we will give them the money that they want from us. Produce what they want and we do not have to buy it. Not to be force fed. The market decides, but some people think that demanding certain products is out of bounds. 

It would be like going to the hardware store for a certain size bolt. They advertised/announced we are getting a new batch of bolts this week. You go in and they don't have it and they say that they have decided not to bring in the new batch of bolts but that they have a special on weed killer and you need to buy that. I say no I came in for the certain size bolt. You want my money then you carry the bolts if you don't carry the bolts then that doesn't mean I have to spend my money on something else that you do carry because you need my money. Then the customer (R2 sympathizers) next to me says "How dare you want that bolt if they don't carry it. You should forget the bolt and be happy that they have that sale on the weed killer! If they hadn't advertised/announced it I wouldn't be in the store having that conversation":freak:


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

actias said:


> And what people forget (Especially the R2 sympathizers) is that any company is in business to make money. They don't make these kits to be nice to us or be our friends or because they have good hearts. They give us kits because they want our money. That means the relationship is not one sided. So we have every right to demand what we want to buy with our hard earned dollars. Not what is easiest for them, or what's convenient to make or what they want us to buy. It is not a game of "Ooooh I wonder what R2 is going to be nice enough to let us buy". Produce what we want and we will give them the money that they want from us. Produce what they want and we do not have to buy it. Not to be force fed. The market decides, but some people think that demanding certain products is out of bounds.
> 
> It would be like going to the hardware store for a certain size bolt. They advertised/announced we are getting a new batch of bolts this week. You go in and they don't have it and they say that they have decided not to bring in the new batch of bolts but that they have a special on weed killer and you need to buy that. I say no I came in for the certain size bolt. You want my money then you carry the bolts if you don't carry the bolts then that doesn't mean I have to spend my money on something else that you do carry because you need my money. Then the customer (R2 sympathizers) next to me says "How dare you want that bolt if they don't carry it. You should forget the bolt and be happy that they have that sale on the weed killer!":freak:





True but there must have been a reason why it's been cancelled or put on the back burner. I know companies have to take risks (just like the Eagle) but I don't think they would have taken the decision lightly.


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> True but there must have been a reason why it's been cancelled or put on the back burner. I know companies have to take risks (just like the Eagle) but I don't think they would have taken the decision lightly.


That's normally true. But the problem is not just that the shuttle itself has been shelved (Which with R2's track record is code for cancelled), it is R2's pattern of doing this over and over again. I'm happy that people got the Eagle. I did too. It's a beautiful kit. But R2 should only have the licenses that they can effectively maintain. What good is it to have so many licenses if it's too expensive to maintain all of them. That's all I'm trying to say.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

actias said:


> And what people forget (Especially the R2 sympathizers) is that any company is in business to make money. They don't make these kits to be nice to us or be our friends or because they have good hearts. They give us kits because they want our money. That means the relationship is not one sided. So we have every right to demand what we want to buy with our hard earned dollars. Not what is easiest for them, or what's convenient to make or what they want us to buy. It is not a game of "Ooooh I wonder what R2 is going to be nice enough to let us buy". Produce what we want and we will give them the money that they want from us. Produce what they want and we do not have to buy it. Not to be force fed. The market decides, but some people think that demanding certain products is out of bounds.
> 
> It would be like going to the hardware store for a certain size bolt. They advertised/announced we are getting a new batch of bolts this week. You go in and they don't have it and they say that they have decided not to bring in the new batch of bolts but that they have a special on weed killer and you need to buy that. I say no I came in for the certain size bolt. You want my money then you carry the bolts if you don't carry the bolts then that doesn't mean I have to spend my money on something else that you do carry because you need my money. Then the customer (R2 sympathizers) next to me says "How dare you want that bolt if they don't carry it. You should forget the bolt and be happy that they have that sale on the weed killer! If they hadn't advertised/announced it I wouldn't be in the store having that conversation":freak:


That's a great analysis. The bottom line is, any business needs its customers to survive. When you disappoint and, yes, piss off customers, it may end up costing you more in the long run than what you think you saved by backing out of a deal.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

There's obviously a lot of emotion involved in this thread that's just going to have to work itself out. But as stated, Round 2 is in business to make money, and somehow the numbers don't add up for them to produce the Galileo at this time. The customer can demand all he wants, but if it appears it's going to end up losing money, are they supposed to produce it anyway? No, they are a business. It stinks, yes. What Moebius, Pegasus, Revell, Round 2 all do is irrelevant to each other. Somehow Moebius made the Derelict work, Round 2 can't justify the Galileo. Two different situations. No, the thing Round 2 is guilty of and it's been repeated over and over is they talk about things too soon.


----------



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

Uh... guys! . . . Round 2 was affected by factors outside of their control. They had an employee who ripped them off, probably by over $100 grand. The extent is still unknown. Please consider this when criticizing them. Maybe the woman who embezzeled the money should not have been given the control and access she had to the company's money. But that being said, let's acknowledge that had that not happened, R2 would probably be in a good enough place to have done the Galileo. It's not entirely about ignoring their customers. They are in a bind at the moment. A bind that will probably eventually pass . . .


----------



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

Actually, I was wrong, over $300K . . . http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/...0000-theft-at-SB-based-company-306046911.html


----------



## clactonite (Dec 16, 2006)

I'm amazed we have the kits we have. The 1/350 TOS enterprise, a kit from a 50 year old TV show. The refit, from a 37 year old movie and the 22" eagle from a 1970's series. The late 1990's and 2000's were a pretty lean time for modellers of our genre. The old AMT/Ertl kits were going for daft money on certain auction sites and next to nothing was being produced. It's lovely to be able to pick up the K7 and Spock kits up without breaking the bank and I look at any new kits as serious attempts to produce accurate scale reproductions rather than toy like representations. I do agree that it would be better to keep projects under wraps until they are in production though as expectation can be a double edged sword.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

R2 got hosed by an employee. That absolutely sucks and it certainly explains their situation and why they've made the business decisions they have. Given the facts, I would likely make the same decisions. But the flipside is seeing this from the Trek license holder perspective. They (CBS) are also in the business of making money, and if they have a licensee that isn't exploiting their license -- regardless of the reason -- they also have an obligation to make decisions in the best interest of THEIR company. If I held a valuable license and I approved a contract to have a company exploit that license -- to sell products to make me money -- and that company couldn't do it (regardless of the reason) I'd start looking for a company that would. If CBS switched the Trek license to Moebius today, would anyone doubt that within a very short amount of time we'd see some new tool kits showing up on shelves? Sure, we might initially get some vehicle we've seen before, Enterprises and D7s, but it's also not farfetched to imagine we'd eventually see a Grissom or Regula. Hell, it's not implausible to imagine a spacedock or a V'ger (if they can do a Derelict and a Jonny Quest Firefly, why the heck not?!). It's an unfortunate situation, but regardless of how it happened R2 is obligated to dig their way out of it. If they can't, or they don't feel they can make a profit from the Trek license, then I have no doubt that several other companies would be more than happy to step in and give it a shot. And CBS would be foolish not to consider whether a different company would do a better job making them money.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Guys, drop the embezzlement stuff... it happened over the course of a decade and Round 2 didn't even notice the money was missing. This had no effect on the Galileo. If you want to imagine it had any effect at all on Trek models, it may have slowed the release of the 1/350 TOS Enterprise.

As a company, Round 2 can't walk and chew gum at the same time. They got preoccupied by other things and the Galileo fell through the cracks. Buying or not buying their models wouldn't have changed any of this... bugging them about it constantly would have been the only way to keep the Galileo on the front burner. Being patient and passive is why there isn't a Galileo kit for the 50th.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Well, again, I know this is mostly emotion talking, but you know that if another company got the Trek license, they would not be getting the existing molds. They'd have to start from scratch and all the existing Trek stuff you do like is now off the market. Is this not correct?


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

fire91bird said:


> Well, again, I know this is mostly emotion talking, but you know that if another company got the Trek license, they would not be getting the existing molds. They'd have to start from scratch and all the existing Trek stuff you do like is now off the market. Is this not correct?


True. But how many of the existing molds are accurate and don't require major surgery to look decent? How many require aftermarket suppliers to step in an offer resin and PE add-ons just to get the model even close to the on-screen appearance? If Moebius or Bandai were to make a new tool Defiant, for example, does anyone doubt that it wouldn't likely be better engineered and more accurately represent the studio model? Would anyone cry if the AMT mold was then off the market? Is there a huge cry for the old AMT refit kit now that the PL/R2 refit is available? Yeah, switching vendors would be a shake up and, as we saw with Bandai and Star Wars, they would be starting over with some subjects we've seen before, but those subject would likely be better researched, more accurate, better engineered and we'd have a better shot at seeing some stuff we've never gotten before. Guaranteed? No. But if R2 can't do it then someone else could.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

True story...
Round 2 hired E. James Small to do their kit box build-ups. (You know him here as eimb1999.) Jim is the biggest Space:1999 and Eagle nut in the world (and I mean that respectfully). Jim would't miss a single conversation without mentioning the Eagle to Jamie, and Jaime always knew it was coming. So, the bkught the Space:1999 license and re-popped the old kits. And they sold like the proverbial hotcakes. 

Enter the Facebook group dedicated to convincing Jamie to make a new-tool 1/48 Eagle Transporter. The group gained members, and those members were vocal. Jaime listened. So, with the double onslaught of Jim Small and the Facebook group (now named Space:1999 Props & Ships), and with the re-pops selling, Jaime convinced Tom Lowe to take a chance. And look. It's paid off.

My point? Instead of grousing and kvetching on HobbyTalk, organize. Choose a spokesperson to communicate with Jamie, and communicate professionally. Become high-profile by whatever means the Interwebz affords you.

See, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Hunk A Junk said:


> True. But how many of the existing molds are accurate and don't require major surgery to look decent? How many require aftermarket suppliers to step in an offer resin and PE add-ons just to get the model even close to the on-screen appearance? If Moebius or Bandai were to make a new tool Defiant, for example, does anyone doubt that it wouldn't likely be better engineered and more accurately represent the studio model? Would anyone cry if the AMT mold was then off the market? Is there a huge cry for the old AMT refit kit now that the PL/R2 refit is available? Yeah, switching vendors would be a shake up and, as we saw with Bandai and Star Wars, they would be starting over with some subjects we've seen before, but those subject would likely be better researched, more accurate, better engineered and we'd have a better shot at seeing some stuff we've never gotten before. Guaranteed? No. But if R2 can't do it then someone else could.


And you'd lose the 1/350 TOS E in the process.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Shaw said:


> Guys, drop the embezzlement stuff... it happened over the course of a decade and Round 2 didn't even notice the money was missing. This had no effect on the Galileo. If you want to imagine it had any effect at all on Trek models, it may have slowed the release of the 1/350 TOS Enterprise.
> 
> As a company, Round 2 can't walk and chew gum at the same time. They got preoccupied by other things and the Galileo fell through the cracks. Buying or not buying their models wouldn't have changed any of this... bugging them about it constantly would have been the only way to keep the Galileo on the front burner. Being patient and passive is why there isn't a Galileo kit for the 50th.


Exactly! And excusing R2 for this customer shafting is not an option, at least for me. Hopefully, it will become a hard lesson learned for R2.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

seaQuest said:


> And you'd lose the 1/350 TOS E in the process.


Yep. Or maybe R2 could do what Fine Molds did with their molds when they lost the Star Wars license and they sold them to Revell. If someone thinks the kit will make money, someone will use it. Or they'll make their own version. It might even be better. If we'll build it, they will come!

I'm not saying this should happen or that I want it to happen, but there are companies right now energetically making sci-fi kits, being proactive to make kits happen without US having to beg, plead, create Facebook user groups and otherwise grovel before they'll even consider making a kit. Jamie may be the exception, but the rest of R2 doesn't seem that into us. And if they're not, and WE'RE the ones pumping energy into getting kits made, then they're the wrong company to have the license.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

seaQuest said:


> My point? Instead of grousing and kvetching on HobbyTalk, organize. Choose a spokesperson to communicate with Jamie, and communicate professionally. Become high-profile by whatever means the Interwebz affords you.
> 
> See, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.


Because, remember everyone, to get a business to sell you a product they must be asked politely but firmly. Beg, but beg professionally, and maybe we'll be lucky enough to give them our money for something we might want.

R2 knew people wanted a new tool Galileo. That's why they announced it. No one had to make virtual billboards or organize a friendship committee to get their attention. But none of that mattered and it got cancelled anyway. Now WE'RE supposed to make the effort and mount a respectful political campaign just to get them to deliver on something they already promised???


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

I don't think we'll ever see a better 1/350 TOS Enterprise.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Because, remember everyone, to get a business to sell you a product they must be asked politely but firmly. Beg, but beg professionally, and maybe we'll be lucky enough to give them our money for something we might want.
> 
> R2 knew people wanted a new tool Galileo. That's why they announced it. No one had to make virtual billboards or organize a friendship committee to get their attention. But none of that mattered and it got cancelled anyway. Now WE'RE supposed to make the effort and mount a respectful political campaign just to get them to deliver on something they already promised???


Well once again, it's clear there is a lot of emotion. Round 2 has made their decision so doing nothing will get you nothing. Venting here will do little. You might consider commenting over on CollectorModel where Jamie has replied to a few comments. I don't think I'd repeat some of the sentiments expressed here over there if I really wanted a Galileo, but that's your call.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I agree with what Rob and others are saying. The extreme disappointment of the cancellation of this kit by those who were eagerly anticipating it's release for the 50th Anniversary _should_ make it known to Round 2 by any means necessary. Like what was stated earlier, the embezzlement occurred over the course of many years, not overnight, and really has no bearing on their decision to cancel this kit.

If they are experiencing a lean year, it is most likely that they made poor decisions in other areas of the company and are looking at what can be cut to improve their "bottom line". Whether that is truly the case or not, for them to poll the modeling public on what kit they want next, commission work on it, put it into the pipeline, promise a release date, delay it with the promise that it is still in the pipeline and will be released when promised - then drop the ball on it, like has been done with many kits in the recent past, is not a good way to treat its "valued" customers.

I would not suggest sending letters and comments to Jamie, since he already knows how we feel about this and is himself, disappointed. I would suggest sending comments directly to the upper management staff, or even perhaps Tom Lowe himself. Of course, you want to avoid the use of abusive or otherwise fowl language in your communique, but your disappointment should be strongly emphasized and made clear. It _is_ the squeaky wheel that gets greased. If you truly want this kit, let them know it. I do and I am.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Because, remember everyone, to get a business to sell you a product they must be asked politely but firmly. Beg, but beg professionally, and maybe we'll be lucky enough to give them our money for something we might want.
> 
> R2 knew people wanted a new tool Galileo. That's why they announced it. No one had to make virtual billboards or organize a friendship committee to get their attention. But none of that mattered and it got cancelled anyway. Now WE'RE supposed to make the effort and mount a respectful political campaign just to get them to deliver on something they already promised???


Yes. You want a Galileo that bad? WORK FOR IT! We got the Eagle because we WORKED FOR IT! But it's easier to bitch and moan than be proactive and let Jamie know in the strongest possible way, en masse. Because if you're not of a mind to get off your dead asses and do the legwork, then you get what you deserve...which is to say, bupkiss, zip, big ol' goose egg.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Trek Ace said:


> I agree with what Rob and others are saying. The extreme disappointment of the cancellation of this kit by those who were eagerly anticipating it's release for the 50th Anniversary _should_ make it known to Round 2 by any means necessary. Like what was stated earlier, the embezzlement occurred over the course of many years, not overnight, and really has no bearing on their decision to cancel this kit.
> 
> If they are experiencing a lean year, it is most likely that they made poor decisions in other areas of the company and are looking at what can be cut to improve their "bottom line". Whether that is truly the case or not, for them to poll the modeling public on what kit they want next, commission work on it, put it into the pipeline, promise a release date, delay it with the promise that it is still in the pipeline and will be released when promised - then drop the ball on it, like has been done with many kits in the recent past, is not a good way to treat its "valued" customers.
> 
> I would not suggest sending letters and comments to Jamie, since he already knows how we feel about this and is himself, disappointed. I would suggest sending comments directly to the upper management staff, or even perhaps Tom Lowe himself. Of course, you want to avoid the use of abusive or otherwise fowl language in your communique, but your disappointment should be strongly emphasized and made clear. It _is_ the squeaky wheel that gets greased. If you truly want this kit, let them know it. I do and I am.


Yup. R2 treated us like crap. They need to know that we're onto them.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> Of course, you want to avoid the use of abusive or otherwise fowl language.


Don't chicken out.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> Yup. R2 treated us like crap. They need to know that we're onto them.


Onto them? Is there a conspiracy? Should I be on the lookout for three hobos and a second shooter on the Grassy Knoll?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Trek Ace said:


> I would suggest sending comments directly to the upper management staff, or even perhaps Tom Lowe himself.


Cool. Got contact info?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

seaQuest said:


> Yes. You want a Galileo that bad? WORK FOR IT! We got the Eagle because we WORKED FOR IT! But it's easier to bitch and moan than be proactive and let Jamie know in the strongest possible way, en masse. Because if you're not of a mind to get off your dead asses and do the legwork, then you get what you deserve...which is to say, bupkiss, zip, big ol' goose egg.


There is so much emotion, so much simplification going on here now, we're losing the signal in the noise, and logic and facts are being dismissed as being an 'apologist' for the company. 

We must not forget that one of the most significant factors in the release of the 22" Eagle was the reduced tooling cost enabled by capitalizing on the modular nature of the vehicle itself. Are there ANY parts that aren't duplicated? I think the tree holding the pod floor is the only one. Floor, central roof, the grid underside, I think that's it. Everything else, all the other sprue trees are single mold shot several times. I'm obviously no expert but that has to be at least 50-70% less steel cut. 

Galileo, there's very little part duplication going on there. Maybe you could get away with one nacelle and its details, but maybe not. No real savings. If they don't break the hull parts into slabs you're looking at a pretty deep draft tool needed which is expensive. So just to pull numbers out of my a**, if the average tooling cost for a kit is still roughly $100,000, the Eagle may well have been like $70,000, while Galileo may well be more $150,000. 

And you only get the one use out of it. There's no 'lab shuttle' or 'cargo shuttle' to re-pop. 

Yes, it sucks to have it postponed. Yes, there is a case of the longer they wait the more the costs will be and there's a failure loop that engages, we ran into that in some ways with the 1/350 TOS Enterprise. Remember that? It got delayed and postponed and the extras got sidelined into a separate accessory kit, but it DID get released.

Maybe that's what's needed, hah? Another 'Club Galileo' solicitation? Get like 1701 reservations and whoop, production starts?

There, that's some productive thought.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

SteveR said:


> Cool. Got contact info?


This MAY be urban legend, but I have heard that if you look into a mirror and say his name three times, Mr Lowe will instantly appear. But I have also heard he will eat all your food (even the stuff you taped your name on) run up your cable bill with PPV porn , and in one case he found a guys checkbook and tried to forge a check for $360,000.00! What an odd amount, I wonder what's up with that? 
Tom


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

SteveR said:


> Cool. Got contact info?


Yes, anyone with any contact info to management?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve H said:


> There is so much emotion, so much simplification going on here now, we're losing the signal in the noise, and logic and facts are being dismissed as being an 'apologist' for the company.


With all due respect, Steve, the "noise" that's obscuring the discussion is comprised in part by comments related to the Eagle kit. No one is arguing that R2 was unwise to proceed with the Eagle. On the contrary, given the fantastic sales, I don't know what took R2 so long. It's like the 1/350 Enterprise all over again. But ALL of this is beside the point with regard to the Galileo.

It shouldn't be an either/or proposition. It's not like Moebius had to chose between a releasing Flying Sub and releasing a Jupiter 2. Yes, tooling a new Galileo will no doubt be expensive. Apparently it's beyond R2's means to finance the sorts of kits the holders of the Star Trek license have repeatedly promised to produce. That's why some of us are frustrated. The only company legally able to produce new Trek kits in America remains, with very few exceptions, unable or unwilling to do so. This has been the case for years, and there's no end in sight.

Again, I'm thrilled R2 made such a cool Eagle kit. I really wish I liked the Eagle, but that's beside the point. As a Trek modeler my concern is Star Trek. Other companies release Derelicts, Mars Hoppers, and kits as unlikely as the monster from Relic. These kits get made because the companies that make them are willing to do what they have to from a business perspective to make the numbers work. If PL can't make the Galileo's numbers work than I submit the problem has less to do with the "single use" nature of the subject than with R2's dysfunctional business model -- a business model seemingly based on keeping tooling costs to such a bare minimum that the company is unable to produce anything other than re-pops and the occasional, once-a-decade home-runner like the 1/350 E. Maybe PL's business model works fine for PL management, but for us loyal and longtime Trek modelers it SUCKS.



Steve H said:


> Maybe that's what's needed, hah? Another 'Club Galileo' solicitation? Get like 1701 reservations and whoop, production starts?


I really wish I thought this sort of thing would work, but I personally have lost my faith in R2. The Galileo thing was the last straw. Thanks to Jim Key I have a beautiful 1/350 Klingon Cruiser, Scott Alexander made an awesome Botany Bay, and once Randy Cooper (or whomever) re-tools a more accurate Galileo I will line up to give him my business. My days of waiting for R2 to sh-t or get off the pot are over.

That said, should someone more optimistic than yours truly decide to start a "Galileo Club" they will have my support, 100%. Some causes are worth supporting, even if they're lost causes.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

Mr Thomas Lowe
c/o Round 2 Communications LLC
4073 Meghan Beeler Court, South Bend, IN 46628
PH: (574) 243-3000
Take a page from the Great Bird's playbook and flood the offices with mail that has to be physically handled and dealt with. Call their operators and express just how important this kit is to you! Be polite; most likely these folks are making minimum wage and will have NO IDEA what a Galileo is. Do NOT be discouraged if they ask if that is one of the ninja turtles. Patience IS a virtue!

When I hit Bing to try and get more info, VERY first listing was Thomas Eugene Lowe in Sellersburg Indiana. PRETTY sure this is him as it lists Playing Mantis, R2 etc. But I am NOT motivated enough to pay the registration fee to find out where he lives. And to be honest, I am wondering where I should draw the line. PRETTY sure though there WILL be folks out there who will NOT have that problem, and to you intrepid individuals I say GODSPEED! :thumbsup:
Tom
PS: Are we CERTAIN this is ENTIRELY R2s fault? It is so rare to have THIS volatile a thread concerning "Star Trek"w/o at least SOME venom directed at either "the bloodsucking" Paramount , or "that weasel hack" JJ Abrams. Hey, maybe R2 was talking to the Axanar folks about doing a lunchbox kit of the Ares and word got back to the powers that be...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Lots of beating on R2 by comparing the actions of Moebius. 

One thing to say. Large Scale Spindrift.

And in the interest of fairness, no, Moebius never promised to do it and then pulled back. They have been steadfast "it can't be done" regardless of the fervor and passion expressed. I recall it got to the point where Moebius got pretty testy if one even make a joke about a large scale Spindrift. 

I don't think anybody ever stated "No Spindrift, no more Moebius for me!"

Is this an 'Apples to Apples' comparison? Not really, more an orange to tangerine I think.


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

Look at Eaglemoss. They are doing beautiful Starship pre-paints tied in with the magazine. They have put out a bunch of ships in a relatively short time frame. Granted they are smaller representations and I don't need pre built, pre painted models but I do know that the tooling costs and finishing costs are not cheap for them either. Yet the quality is impeccable. So it can be done. 

In the early days of PL we got the 1/350 NX-01 and almost right after that the refit went into production and just before the refit release hit the shelves the 1/350 K'Tinga was through the design stage. Then they were bought out. Since then the ONLY major new tool kit we got was the Beautiful 1/350 TOS Enterprise. That's a huge difference in the pace of releases. But even that kit was announced, delayed, may not happen because of tooling costs to a new poll then a new announcement to another delay and finally it's release. It shows that it's more about priorities then anything else. If the 1/350 was so successful then why hasn't some of that success been poured into a new large scale Trek kit. Maybe because they used said profits for even more licenses to make more special edition packaging kits. I have seen all these other companies cranking out kits: Moebius, Revell, Bandai, Eaglemoss, Pegasus. They have all had a very good record- some delays very few if any cancellations. Even ERTL gave us a steady and sustainable flow of NEW TOOL kits. So again it can be done and it's a matter of priorities. 

I don't blame Jamie. It's the people at the top. My dad owns a business and he and his partner take a healthy paycheck every week. Then at the end of the year instead of re investing some of the profits back into the company they would rather take all the profit from that year and split it. As a result of the lack of re investment, they struggle through the following year. So they would rather have more disposable income for more of their personal desires, this minute, then invest in the health of their company. The UNBRIDELED greed element. Enough is never enough!


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

Carson Dyle said:


> But ALL of this is beside the point with regard to the Galileo.


Not necessarily - it may be _entirely_ the point. If they only had the resources to tool up for one new kit at this time, the smart choice is to build the one with the greatest potential ROI.

I don't have access to their financial records or market research, so I can't say for certain, but I also don't have any good reason to doubt what we're being told. 

If they could have done both, why wouldn't they? It would certainly be the optimal outcome for _everyone_ if they did. More money for them, and an even larger pool of happy modelers. 

In short (assuming there actually is a market to justify it), it seems like some people are implying that R2 shelved the Galileo largely out of spite, which is utterly ridiculous.



> It shouldn't be an either/or proposition.


Agreed. But in the real world, unfortunately there's often a rather large gap between "should[n't] be" and "is".

At some point you just have to be adult about it and say, "Well, it sucks and I'm disappointed, but it is what it is" and figure out how to cope with it.


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

Again not angry. Just frustrated with the long term ongoing PATTERN!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve H said:


> One thing to say. Large Scale Spindrift.


NO ONE wanted a Spindrift more than I did, but in that instance even I had to admit it was a money sink hole. I think it killed Frank not to be able to deliver this subject at a decent scale. Still, given all the amazing, and in many cases obscure, retro sci-fi kits Moebius has produced I think they can be forgiven for passing on the Spindrift.

In any case, the Spindrift is NOT the shuttlecraft Galileo.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

FlyingBrickyard said:


> At some point you just have to be adult about it and say, "Well, it sucks and I'm disappointed, but it is what it is" and figure out how to cope with it.


Well, that pretty much goes without saying, doesn't it? Just because folks are expressing their frustration here doesn't mean life doesn't go on for them. For some it just means going on without R2.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

It's a tangent, but I would respectfully suggest to everyone, find, borrow, rent or stream the movie 'Executive Suite'. Towards the end, the exec that is vying for CEO explains all about the cost cutting and lowering of standards that he felt was ABSOLUTELY necessary for the company to survive and provide a decent return to stockholders. It was important to do so, because nothing else mattered. The competing exec gives a very impassioned speech about quality finding its market, pride, planning for more than making one more penny today at the expense of, well, the very soul of the company and its employees. 

Movie was made in 1954. Never has it been more relevant than it is today. 

That VP that wanted to make cheap, crap furniture, that wanted to kill the R&D department, that dismisses the public perception that the company makes nothing but junk as meaningless, the soul of that character is in every company around. You know it. They won. 

yeah, OK, pop culture, it's just a old movie, blah blah. Reality makes pop culture. Pop culture becomes reality. 

Star Trek connection: Directed by Robert Wise.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

Proper2 said:


> Well, that pretty much goes without saying, doesn't it? Just because folks are expressing their frustration here doesn't mean life doesn't go on for them. For some it just means going on without R2.


14 pages of whining seems to suggest otherwise. 

Putting that aside, that still doesn't make sense to me. "I wanted this so much and I'm so upset it's not happening _right now_ that I won't buy it when it does become available!"

If that's how some want to deal with it, that's fine (if self-defeating). But if they're going to move on, move on. Don't keep popping in every 5 minutes to remind everyone else that they've given up and moved on (thus demonstrating they actually haven't).

Eh, whatever. Just try to consider yourselves lucky if this is currently the biggest and most upsetting crisis in your life.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Carson Dyle said:


> With all due respect, Steve, the "noise" that's obscuring the discussion is comprised in part by comments related to the Eagle kit. No one is arguing that R2 was unwise to proceed with the Eagle. On the contrary, given the fantastic sales, I don't know what took R2 so long. It's like the 1/350 Enterprise all over again. But ALL of this is beside the point with regard to the Galileo.


Yeah, I'm not sure why the Eagle is being thrown around in this way. One "gentleman" in particular was gloating that he got his Eagle and "neener, neener," tough tooties for you Galileo saps! What a guy! 




Carson Dyle said:


> It shouldn't be an either/or proposition. It's not like Moebius had to chose between a releasing Flying Sub and releasing a Jupiter 2. Yes, tooling a new Galileo will no doubt be expensive. Apparently it's beyond R2's means to finance the sorts of kits the holders of the Star Trek license have repeatedly promised to produce. That's why some of us are frustrated. The only company legally able to produce new Trek kits in America remains, with very few exceptions, unable or unwilling to do so. This has been the case for years, and there's no end in sight.
> 
> Again, I'm thrilled R2 made such a cool Eagle kit. I really wish I liked the Eagle, but that's beside the point. As a Trek modeler my concern is Star Trek. Other companies release Derelicts, Mars Hoppers, and kits as unlikely as the monster from Relic. These kits get made because the companies that make them are willing to do what they have to from a business perspective to make the numbers work. If PL can't make the Galileo's numbers work than I submit the problem has less to do with the "single use" nature of the subject than with R2's dysfunctional business model -- a business model seemingly based on keeping tooling costs to such a bare minimum that the company is unable to produce anything other than re-pops and the occasional, once-a-decade home-runner like the 1/350 E. Maybe PL's business model works fine for PL management, but for us loyal and longtime Trek modelers it SUCKS.
> 
> ...


I'm in your boat, sir. My prime love is Star Trek TOS, far and away! I have no desire for Space 1999 hardware. Those fans can keep their Eagles. No matter how pretty that 2-footer might be, it's not a Jefferies Star Trek icon! After a 1:350 Enterprise and a same scale Botany Bay, a re-tooled 1:35 Galileo was my next and possibly my last want! I would love a 1:350 Battle Cruiser and Romulan BoP but I don't think those are in the cards for me, mostly for space-related reasons (I am married after all). Like you said, I will be on the lookout elsewhere for a re-tooled Galileo, since R2 decided it's not worth their effort.



FlyingBrickyard said:


> 14 pages of whining seems to suggest otherwise.
> 
> Putting that aside, that still doesn't make sense to me. "I wanted this so much and I'm so upset it's not happening _right now_ that I won't buy it when it does become available!"
> 
> ...


I neither expect nor ask for your understanding, or your approval or anything else from you. Nor do I give a rat's pattootie about your insulting stance. What makes sense to you and what doesn't is not my concern. I feel like venting. Just move along if you're sick and tired.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Brick, or FBY or whatever works for shorthand, this is what puzzles me as well. I get being upset, feeling disappointed, even betrayed to a point. What I see here are people I feel I know , I respect, who have always been good humored and positive seem, to me, to be completely losing their minds. 

It bothers me. It makes me sad. And I FEEL their pain, their frustration. I can. I get it. Sucks to lose something highly desired. Sucks to have Christmas cancelled. I get that.

Maybe a few more days will build some more perspective. 

I've probably moved to some folks s**t list for what I've said, here and previously.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

I'm sure the folks at r2 or disappointed that their customer base is disappointed . No doubt they labored over the decision and hated to disappoint their customer base. But there are business decisions to be made that the average Joe doesn't know anything about. I'm sure it was a hard decision not only because they knew they would be disappointing their customers but I'm sure they put a lot of effort and work into it also . First and foremost, good or bad, it was a business decision! As a lifelong fan I was disappointed but I accept their decision . There are other things more disappointing in life .

That's my two cents...

Carl-


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

hal9001 said:


> There are other things more disappointing in life .


I know, right? I'm still waiting on the new batch of Crystal Pepsi. And I wish Nabisco would bring back Oreo Os breakfast cereal.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

seaQuest said:


> I'm still waiting on the new batch of Crystal Pepsi. And I wish Nabisco would bring back Oreo Os breakfast cereal.


See what I mean, folks? What a guy.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

FlyingBrickyard said:


> If they only had the resources to tool up for one new kit at this time, the smart choice is to build the one with the greatest potential ROI.


If R2’s dysfunctional business model can only support a couple original Trek models per decade they’re doing something wrong, at least as far as their customers are concerned. Oh, management may be perfectly happy with the status quo, re-popping and re-packaging old kits year-in year out, but if that’s the case they should at least be upfront about it.



FlyingBrickyard said:


> it seems like some people are implying that R2 shelved the Galileo largely out of spite, which is utterly ridiculous..


No one on this thread has suggested that R2 is operating out of spite, so please don’t put words in our mouths. R2’s inability to deliver original Trek kits, despite the obvious interest and demand, is the result of several factors, but I have no reason to believe R2 is motivated by spite. Bottom-line cynicism maybe, but not spite.



FlyingBrickyard said:


> At some point you just have to be adult about it and say, "Well, it sucks and I'm disappointed, but it is what it is" and figure out how to cope with it.


Thanks for the unsolicited condescending lecture, dad.

When a company repeatedly fails to deliver what it promises, loyal customers have a right (some might say an obligation) to voice their dissatisfaction. I couldn’t care less if you agree with my opinions or not, but I’ll continue to voice those opinions as long as I feel like it. 

Maybe the question you should be asking is why you should care. What are you, on R2’s payroll? I’m a longtime Trek modeler and R2 customer who is raising a few valid (and long overdue IMO) complaints on a hobby forum dedicated to the subject of yet another cancelled Trek kit. Why am I taking the time to bother? Because maybe in some small way the disgruntled sentiments voiced here will help the wheel grow squeakier. Beats the “Thank-you for all you’ve done for us, R2!” sycophancy that's done little except reinforce the notion at R2 that the Trek modeling community is satisfied with re-pops and continued stonewalling when it comes to new kits. Passionate Trek modelers need to light a fire under R2, not tell them how great they’ve been doing. Unless you think R2’s output over the last decade or so has been satisfactory in terms of tooling new Trek kits. In which case we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Other companies are bringing awesome new sci-fi kits to market, folks. Is it really too much to expect the company that owns the license to Trek to do likewise?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Brick, or FBY or whatever works for shorthand, this is what puzzles me as well. I get being upset, feeling disappointed, even betrayed to a point. What I see here are people I feel I know , I respect, who have always been good humored and positive seem, to me, to be completely losing their minds.


Steve, I very seldom post on Hobbytalk anymore. Once in a while when I finish a model, and have something to show. Or when I have a Proteus update.

This business with R2 and their inability or unwillingness to produce Trek models is nothing new, and for the longest time I was content to look the other way.

The Galileo announcement pissed me off, not only because it's a subject I love, which Gary Kerr nailed, and R2 promised... but because this has become a pattern with R2. Trek modelers have a legitimate beef with these guys, and for the first time I felt obliged to speak out. Probably a waste of time, but you never know. At any rate, the thread has reached the point where both sides are starting to repeat the same points, so, yeah, this will be my final post on the matter. I hope R2 will eventually happen upon a business plan that allows for the occasional new Star Trek model, and at any rate I hope they think twice before getting their customers amped up over yet another kit, only to then cancel it because of some unforeseen circumstance. 

Okay, back to the workbench. That Moebius Derelict ain't gonna build itself.


----------



## BrianM (Dec 3, 1998)

Well, ...if it happens, it happens. I still have plans to do a cut-away interior on my AMT Galileo.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Steve H said:


> It's a tangent, but I would respectfully suggest to everyone, find, borrow, rent or stream the movie 'Executive Suite'. Towards the end, the exec that is vying for CEO explains all about the cost cutting and lowering of standards that he felt was ABSOLUTELY necessary for the company to survive and provide a decent return to stockholders. It was important to do so, because nothing else mattered. The competing exec gives a very impassioned speech about quality finding its market, pride, planning for more than making one more penny today at the expense of, well, the very soul of the company and its employees.
> 
> Movie was made in 1954. Never has it been more relevant than it is today.
> 
> That VP that wanted to make cheap, crap furniture, that wanted to kill the R&D department, that dismisses the public perception that the company makes nothing but junk as meaningless, the soul of that character is in every company around. You know it. They won.



* *




You're remembering it wrong. The bean counter was played by Fredric March, and his character lost out in the end to William Holden's character, who wanted to continue making innovative and high quality products.


---------------


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Scott: No, I just saw the movie the other day. The problem is I was typing in haste and not explaining. By saying 'they won' I was referring to the Fredric March's of the world, TODAY. TODAY, that mindset is what rules. The gray men in their gray offices that whisper the poison of "let's make one more penny right now, kill that project, shut down R&D, fire those people. Do more with less. Work smarter, not harder."

Some people go back and edit or revise posts to wipe out mistakes. I prefer to be human and reply like this. 

But Scott, I am so glad someone else has seen that movie and understands. Thank you.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> If R2’s dysfunctional business model can only support a couple original Trek models per decade they’re doing something wrong, at least as far as their customers are concerned. Oh, management may be perfectly happy with the status quo, re-popping and re-packaging old kits year-in year out, but if that’s the case they should at least be upfront about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Other companies are doing dribs and drabs. 

I don't disagree with you. Star Trek is under served, but I think it's a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater and dismiss the re-pressing of old kits. Mind, I would have been way way happier if their re-release of the original AMT Enterprise had been the actual 'first release' version of the kit for various reasons but of course that's impossible. 


Here's the thing. Given my statements above, one thing you can see is that many companies have that blind spot of not knowing what to do with a key product line. Hasbro can't figure out what to do with G.I.Joe to save their life. Mattel fumbles around with their Masters of the Universe line and can't really make it 'break out'. Both of those product lines are owned by the respective companies (no licensing fees, no restrictions) and should be pure profit making but they just can't figure it out. 

R2 pays fees for Star Trek. How large? Who knows but it ain't free. It may well be that there is extra money paid out for creating new kits whereas re-pressing something existing is covered by the base licensing fee. That means a new kit is a struggle. 

Speaking of which, don't forget the show 'Enterprise' in the tally of new tool Trek kits. While I was never fond of the show it does exist. And didn't they whip out some new kits in that 1/2500 scale?

So hooray for Moebius for that Derelict. Kinda goofed up on the tooling of that little J2, should have put three legs on the tree instead of 1 and shooting the mold three times but whatever. Now where is the 'Lighthouse/fuel depot' kit?


----------



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

Shaw said:


> Guys, drop the embezzlement stuff... it happened over the course of a decade and Round 2 didn't even notice the money was missing. This had no effect on the Galileo. If you want to imagine it had any effect at all on Trek models, it may have slowed the release of the 1/350 TOS Enterprise.
> 
> As a company, Round 2 can't walk and chew gum at the same time. They got preoccupied by other things and the Galileo fell through the cracks. Buying or not buying their models wouldn't have changed any of this... bugging them about it constantly would have been the only way to keep the Galileo on the front burner. Being patient and passive is why there isn't a Galileo kit for the 50th.


I have a great deal of respect for your talents as a modelmaker. But often in both life and business, timing is everything. This came at a time when R2 was buying out the Lindberg line, and discovered suddenly they had nowhere near the capital they thought they had.

I did have an effect on all their business. $360K is not a drop in the bucket. 

Were their priorities that maybe should not have been priorities? (like buying Lindberg . . . ) Probably.

My point is simply that R2 has come back before and delivered when no one thought they could.

The Galileo is being put off, perhaps for a year or so.

But it's not dead yet.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> The Galileo is being put off, perhaps for a year or so.


Oh, please...


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

We have no idea of how long the Galileo is going to be back burnered- could be a year or so, it could be many years, hopefully released before Round2 loses the Trek license.

I still think taking the information they have in hand and releasing a smaller 1/72 exterior only kit would be a good idea. Much smaller tooling costs, good scale for dioramas but small enough to fit the 'budget' kits they have been releasing lately.

One thing this would accomplish is give the management some solid numbers as to interest in this subject and a way to anticipate sales of a larger kit.

This is they path they took for the 1999 Eagle. First release a cheap kit and when sales look good then opt for the larger, all new tool. The worst thing that could happen this way is we get a nice styrene kit of the shuttle- something we have no chance for.

I am sure there will be a number of people thumping chests and declaring 1/32 with interior or nothing, but that happened wit the Eagle as well.

Round 2 seems to be focused on small snap together and prepainted kits recently- a 1/72 shuttle would fit that market well in both tooling costs and price. Let the suits upstairs see how popular the Galileo actually is and give them an idea what to expect if they make the large version.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Steve H said:


> By saying 'they won' I was referring to the Fredric March's of the world, TODAY.


OK. I just misunderstood what you were saying and thought you were talking about in the film.

---------------


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure why the Eagle is being thrown around in this way. One "gentleman" in particular was gloating that he got his Eagle and "neener, neener," tough tooties for you Galileo saps! What a guy!


You took that out-of-context. Apparently, the lively art of sarcasm is lost on you. And I speak fluent sarcasm.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Proper2 said:


> See what I mean, folks? What a guy.


Again. Sarcasm.
Must be wonderful skating through life without a sense of humor. I prescribe binge-watching Family Guy.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> We have no idea of how long the Galileo is going to be back burnered- could be a year or so, it could be many years, hopefully released before Round2 loses the Trek license.
> 
> I still think taking the information they have in hand and releasing a smaller 1/72 exterior only kit would be a good idea. Much smaller tooling costs, good scale for dioramas but small enough to fit the 'budget' kits they have been releasing lately.
> 
> ...


The only flaw in this logic is the 'test article' (I know, I know  ) would be best served in being a re-pop of the old AMT Galileo kit, maybe one that is tweaked a bit in whatever way is possible and makes sense. For example, including figures different from the Bridge kit (which could then be used by people to further populate their Bridge builds) or a base or something. That's your 'testing the water' release.

Which, of course, won't satisfy anyone, I know. 

I'm with you on a 1/72 Galileo with true external features. There's three kits right there, the regular, a pre-paint/pre-deco snap, and a fully assembled display piece. I'd like to see other shuttles done in the same scale including Animated series shuttles. It could all lead to a new-tool (or revised, depending on what the opinion is of the quality of the original kit) Runabout. Wouldn't that be nice?

(Hey, what scale does the 'Vulcan' Shuttle work out to be?)

And by then, maybe the numbers would work for the new tool 1/32 Galileo.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

15 pages and going, who would have thought? Just a few thoughts to chew on:

People who are suggesting that R2 is "sitting on the license", "doesn't intend on ever releasing a Galileo", etc., really have no idea if either or both are the case. All we have is what Jamie wrote on their blog. Anything else is speculation.

Having said that, I do agree that R2 hasn't done all that much with the license. Couple that with their bad habit of announcing kits (and not just Trek kits at that) and then canceling them months/years later is not a good thing. I can understand why the latest cancellation has people doubting R2's interest in producing new-tool kits of Sci-Fi subjects. 

We'll have to wait and see if R2 does get its finances straightened out and starts to produce the new-tool Trek (and other Sci-Fi) kits we would like to see. If 2017 turns out to be like 2016 (no new-tool kits), then I might be forced to join the chorus of doubters.

Regarding the suggestion by some that a 1/72 Galileo would be a good idea, you all realize that would make the shuttle about 4" to 5" long and many of us think 1:32 is too small as it is! I would be up for a 1:32 kit with just an accurate exterior, but understand why people would want both exterior and interior. 

Also, I really think that sending a civil letter/email to the owner of the company explaining why you're upset with the Galileo cancellation is a much better way of getting through to the company. Certainly much better than 15 pages of complaining on a forum that the company heads probably don't frequent.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I'm kinda all-in on a larger Galileo kit, I assume the 1/32 scale new-tool was more for comparability/contrast with the old kit and the Bridge kit. Why not go 1/24? That might actually make some aspects easier. I dunno.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

spock62 said:


> Also, I really think that sending a civil letter/email to the owner of the company explaining why you're upset with the Galileo cancellation is a much better way of getting through to the company. Certainly much better than 15 pages of complaining on a forum that the company heads probably don't frequent.


R2 has a now-proven track record of listening to Facebook groups. Unfortunately, some people here have the attitude that they're above using Facebook in sny way, shape, or form.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

spock62 said:


> Having said that, I do agree that R2 hasn't done all that much with the license. Couple that with their bad habit of announcing kits (and not just Trek kits at that) and then canceling them months/years later is not a good thing.


That's the biggest problem. Don't announce intentions, announce product availability.

---------------


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Here's a marketing question: how is announcing the intention to release a kit advantageous to the company ... if the release of the kit is uncertain? If the kit is not released, the announcements will have served no purpose in terms of increasing sales. 

Is it simply playing the odds? "If we don't release it, we've lost nothing by promoting it --- and if we released without advance announcements, we'd have lost some valuable marketing momentum?"

I'm thinking that the "announce without release" habit won't kill sales, but will just negate any marketing momentum as we customers adopt a "we'll believe it when we see it" approach. 

In other words ... will this Galileo disappointment cause us to _refuse_ to buy real R2 product when it _does_ arrive? After all, they seem to have no competitors, and these kits don't seem to have infinite windows of availability. 

So maybe there's no reason for R2 to _stop_ announcing without certainty of production? Opinions?


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

scotthm said:


> That's the biggest problem. Don't announce intentions, announce product availability.
> 
> ---------------


Exactamundo!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Here's a marketing question: how is announcing the intention to release a kit advantageous to the company ... if the release of the kit is uncertain? If the kit is not released, the announcements will have served no purpose in terms of increasing sales.
> 
> Is it simply playing the odds? "If we don't release it, we've lost nothing by promoting it --- and if we released without advance announcements, we'd have lost some valuable marketing momentum?"
> 
> ...


I don't think that announcing a desired kit, then canceling it a year or so later, will hurt the company in the long run. *But*, having a *habit* of doing so, as R2 has done, might. IMHO, it's not good business. While I understand that situations come up, some out of R2's control, some that fall into the "Oops, it's going to be more expensive then we thought." category, I would think it would be best for them to limit cancellations. 

But, since, as you mentioned, R2 is the _only_ (ROG hasn't done anything since 2013) company producing Star Trek kits , I don't see the current Galileo cancellation causing too many customers to not buy future new-tool kits from R2 in the future. 

Let's face it, if people want Star Trek kits, they will buy them when R2 produces them. The few that won't will not affect sales by any measurable amount.

I also think that R2's massive catalog of old kits is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, they have kits that can be reissued for far less then it costs to do a new-tool kit and there is a market for many of these kits. Some haven't seen the light of day in 40 plus years. The curse is that R2 seems to use these kits as a sort of crutch. Upper management seems more inclined to reissue old kits, with some upgrades, then spend the $$$ for new-tool kits. Especially kits such as Trek which is a rather small niche compared to other types of kits.

I'm thinking out loud here, so take this as an opinion of some guy who makes models and nothing more!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I know the old kits inaccurate but could AMT do some new parts to accurize it? Even a new body shell plus a few other things?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

SUNGOD said:


> I know the old kits inaccurate but could AMT do some new parts to accurize it? Even a new body shell plus a few other things?


The kit is basically upper and lower hulls, interior bulkhead, seats and front console the warp (?) nacelles and some clear windows on the special edition repop, Throw out the hulls (and the bulkhead) and you don't have much left to tweak.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

spock62 said:


> I don't think that announcing a desired kit, then canceling it a year or so later, will hurt the company in the long run. *But*, having a *habit* of doing so, as R2 has done, might. IMHO, it's not good business. While I understand that situations come up, some out of R2's control, some that fall into the "Oops, it's going to be more expensive then we thought." category, I would think it would be best for them to limit cancellations.
> 
> But, since, as you mentioned, R2 is the _only_ (ROG hasn't done anything since 2013) company producing Star Trek kits , I don't see the current Galileo cancellation causing too many customers to not buy future new-tool kits from R2 in the future.
> 
> ...


It's not just Trek. Moebius does more new-tool car kits per year than R2. I'm surprised they did so much with the Barris Batmobile.

Another surprise is they haven't repopped the KISS "Destroyer" album cover figures. I didn't buy them the first time around and want a second chance at 'em. (Of course, it's entirely possible Paul and Gene may be asking an outrageous amount for the license. Or they don't want figures released that are based on Ace and Peter instead of Tommy and Eric. Lots of acrimony there.)


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

SteveR said:


> In other words ... will this Galileo disappointment cause us to _refuse_ to buy real R2 product when it _does_ arrive? After all, they seem to have no competitors, and these kits don't seem to have infinite windows of availability.
> 
> So maybe there's no reason for R2 to _stop_ announcing without certainty of production? Opinions?


What happened to the boy who cried wolf? People stopped paying attention to him, and it cost him his life.

---------------


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

seaQuest said:


> Another surprise is they haven't repopped the KISS "Destroyer" album cover figures. I didn't buy them the first time around and want a second chance at 'em. (Of course, it's entirely possible Paul and Gene may be asking an outrageous amount for the license.)


NOBODY bought them the first time around (I paid FIFTY NINE CENTS each when Toys R Us was dumping them.) But they DID bring them back! It has been three or four years, but they did a run as prepaints. PRETTY sure no one bought those either...:wave:
Tom


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

scotthm said:


> What happened to the boy who cried wolf? People stopped paying attention to him, and it cost him his life.


Yeah, that came to mind, but in this case, the fable works in that we would ignore future announcements of "coming soon ..." 
But we would not ignore "For sale now! CultTVman has stock!"

We'd probably buy the thing. 

Now, if R2 (or Cult, or SSM, say) were crying wolf by announcing that the thing was _in stock_, and it actually _wasn't_ ... there would be heck to pay.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Bwain no more said:


> NOBODY bought them the first time around (I paid FIFTY NINE CENTS each when Toys R Us was dumping them.) But they DID bring them back! It has been three or four years, but they did a run as prepaints. PRETTY sure no one bought those either...:wave:
> Tom


Well, Hell's bells. Hey! AC/DC figures!
I find that weird. Usually KISS merch flies off the shelves (except the KISS caskets).


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

IIRC the first issue of the kits came out around the time McFarlane had the KISS license. So they (the action figures) were cheaper, better sculpted.... same competetive problem figure kit producers are facing now (well, except for the sculpting, but the fact of the matter is the PVC or whatever material the figures are cast from will retain detail FAR better than styrene when transitioning from prototype to production item).
Tom


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

seaQuest said:


> It's not just Trek. Moebius does more new-tool car kits per year than R2. I'm surprised they did so much with the Barris Batmobile.


While I was addressing Star Trek kits in the last post, I did mention the lack of new-tool Sci-Fi kits in general in other posts. And the same can be said for car kits too. The only new-tool car kit I can think of is the snap-together General Lee. Seems to me that reissuing old kits is just too strong a pull for R2 upper management/bean-counters. 

Also, Moebius doesn't have a catalog of old kits to pull from...they have to do new-tool kits. But I do agree, for a small company (smaller than R2), Moebius manages to produce a lot of kits every year. Personally, I can't wait for the new Batman Batmobile!


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

spock62 said:


> While I was addressing Star Trek kits in the last post, I did mention the lack of new-tool Sci-Fi kits in general in other posts. And the same can be said for car kits too. The only new-tool car kit I can think of is the snap-together General Lee. Seems to me that reissuing old kits is just too strong a pull for R2 upper management/bean-counters.
> 
> Also, Moebius doesn't have a catalog of old kits to pull from...they have to do new-tool kits. But I do agree, for a small company (smaller than R2), Moebius manages to produce a lot of kits every year. Personally, I can't wait for the new Batman Batmobile!


Yep, looking forward to that Batmobile, but even moreso their Proteus! 

Round 2 did a great rendition of the '66 Batmobile plus recent Camaro and Challenger kits, although the latter are simplified.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Bwain no more said:


> IIRC the first issue of the kits came out around the time McFarlane had the KISS license. So they (the action figures) were cheaper, better sculpted.... same competetive problem figure kit producers are facing now (well, except for the sculpting, but the fact of the matter is the PVC or whatever material the figures are cast from will retain detail FAR better than styrene when transitioning from prototype to production item).
> Tom


That's right. Forgot about the McFarlane figures. 
Currently, Moebius has that problem with the Adam West Batman. The facial detail is soft. The Hot Toys figure? No comparison. Even the NACA 18" figure is superior.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

spock62 said:


> Seems to me that reissuing old kits is just too strong a pull for R2 upper management/bean-counters.


You think?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

As to the KISS figure kits, isn't it more likely they just got caught in the "who gives a crap about building a figure kit in this day and age?" whirlpool that affects everyone? As much as I might wish it was still the '60s, that entire culture that Aurora fostered is gone. People want either action figures or pre-built statues/display pieces. I fear the only people buying Aurora-style figure kits are a. Old farts like us and b. speculators that want to milk that nostalgia money from we old farts. I suspect Aurora-style figure kits are an even more niche market.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

seaQuest said:


> That's right. Forgot about the McFarlane figures.
> Currently, Moebius has that problem with the Adam West Batman. The facial detail is soft. The Hot Toys figure? No comparison. Even the NACA 18" figure is superior.


I was fortunate enough to have received a resin copy of Jeff's sculpt on the AW Batman as well as an early test shot. Although the crispness of the facial detailing did suffer a bit in the translation, the incredible engineering (and fit) of the cowl pieces more than make up for this. I no longer have the resin prototype, but the picture below is a side by side of the plastic kit face from the test shot next to the Sculpy original (done for me by Mr Yagher) of a replacement face I offer through my company, Cult of Personality Productions. Photo below that is a set still from the episode "Smack in the Middle",the second part of the pilot, which seemed to me to be an EXCELLENT match to the pose of the Moebius kit. So I asked Jeff to try and match the expression on Adam's face (obviously I am biased, but I feel he came pretty close. )
















Clearly, a resin casting from a flexible rubber mold will allow for sharper detail. But unlike some of the projects I have worked on utilizing Aurora kits as a platform, THIS one I did SOLELY to try and provide an entirely different feel for the kit just by changing the expression on the face. Just like Hot Toys does with their multiple face features (but on a MUCH lower budget). And getting back to HT, a vinyl casting from steel molds based on an original sculpt one and a third to DOUBLE (in NECA's case) the size of the Moebius kit DEFINITELY allows for improved retention of what was better detail to begin with. But IMHO, the likeness on the original styrene Moebius kit face still holds up (as MANY painters on these forums have shown). BTW, if I had the $$$ I WOULD probably get the Hot Toys, even though some of the seams on the cowl are incorrect, and it appears that they may have used reference pictures from the '66 feature film AFTER Batman got knocked in the water and the ears drooped a bit. ALOT of collectors prefer the Hot Toys over the Moebius kit, and the Tweeterhead statue over the Hot Toys. But both of those items are most likely having little to no impact on sales of the Moebius kit since they retail at 6 to 8 times the price. 
Tom


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Bwain no more said:


> I was fortunate enough to have received a resin copy of Jeff's sculpt on the AW Batman as well as an early test shot. Although the crispness of the facial detailing did suffer a bit in the translation, the incredible engineering (and fit) of the cowl pieces more than make up for this. I no longer have the resin prototype, but the picture below is a side by side of the plastic kit face from the test shot next to the Sculpy original (done for me by Mr Yagher) of a replacement face I offer through my company, Cult of Personality Productions. Photo below that is a set still from the episode "Smack in the Middle",the second part of the pilot, which seemed to me to be an EXCELLENT match to the pose of the Moebius kit. So I asked Jeff to try and match the expression on Adam's face (obviously I am biased, but I feel he came pretty close. )
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought the Moebius likeness was spot on for Adam. All the aftermarket attempts I have seen fall flat.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

RSN said:


> I thought the Moebius likeness was spot on for Adam. All the aftermarket attempts I have seen fall flat.


Well, as far as I know, mine is the ONLY aftermarket attempt for the Moebius kit, so here are a couple more images that will hopefully leave a better impression.
















But getting back to the original point, thanks for posting your build-up photo, it illustrates pretty well the quality of the likeness straight OOB. BTW, have you noticed how the facepiece doesn't really resemble Adam UNTIL you put the mask on? It might be because it has no eyebrows and the brow area is flattened somewhat (maybe like he would look with a make-up appliance?).
Tom
PS;That is NOT my build-up, but one from our friend Yasutoshi...


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Bwain no more said:


> Well, as far as I know, mine is the ONLY aftermarket attempt for the Moebius kit, so here are a couple more images that will hopefully leave a better impression.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're right about the mask thing. Remember the Billiken Michael Keaton figures? They only sculpted the part of Keaton's face that showed out from the cowl on the separate head insert. The eyes were sculpted with the cowl.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

SteveR said:


> Here's a marketing question: how is announcing the intention to release a kit advantageous to the company ... if the release of the kit is uncertain? If the kit is not released, the announcements will have served no purpose in terms of increasing sales.
> 
> Is it simply playing the odds? "If we don't release it, we've lost nothing by promoting it --- and if we released without advance announcements, we'd have lost some valuable marketing momentum?"
> 
> ...


Right. Truth be told, as PO'd as I am at R2, if the kit was released tomorrow or the next year I would jump at it. I just won't buy the crappy filler stuff that they'll sell until and if that moment comes.


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

Here's a question: the original Galileo decal sheet depicts alternate markings for the Columbus, including a big "3" which would indicate the registry for the Columbus was intended to be NCC-1701/3. In the remastered version of "The Galileo Seven", the Columbus is shown with registry NCC-1701/2, and I have seen many a similar reference on the interweb. Who knows where exactly that information came from / was based on. But my question is: can the original decal sheet be used to definitively say the Columbus was #3? I myself am inclined to say yes.

Also interesting to note is that while the registry numbers / letters for the Galileo appear to use the regular series typeface, the lettering for "U.S.S. Enterprise" appears to be based on a vertically compressed version of the pilot typeface, as is most obvious based on the shape of the letter "R".


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

alensatemybuick said:


> Here's a question: the original decal sheet Shaw is basing his Galileo marking on depicts alternate markings for the Columbus, including a big "3" which would indicate the registry for the Columbus was intended to be NCC-1701/3. In the remastered version of "The Galileo Seven", the Columbus is shown with registry NCC-1701/2, and I have seen many a similar reference on the interweb. Who knows where exactly that information came from / was based on. But my question is: can the original decal sheet be used to definitively say the Columbus was #3? I myself am inclined to say yes.
> 
> Also interesting to note is that while the registry numbers / letters for the Galileo appear to use the regular series typeface, the lettering for "U.S.S. Enterprise" appears to be based on a vertically compressed version of the pilot typeface, as is most obvious based on the shape of the letter "R".


Yeah, the Galileo/Galileo II had a different looking font for the Enterprise portion of the registry than what the improved decals show. Note the "R" in particular. I guess today's equivalent font is called, "Airborne": http://www.fontspace.com/category/star trek


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

Apologies if I did not make it clear, I was talking about the orignal decal sheet used for the Galileo filming miniature (there are a few of these still in existence), not the marking on the full-size mockup. The point about the typeface was more of an aside anyway, though I think there is a "head-on" shot of the Galileo entering the hangar bay that shows the horizontally compressed, pilot style typeface (which differs from that used on the mock-up).

*ON EDIT*: best photo I could find on the web is a bit grainy, but after cropping and magnifying, even with the loss of resolution, the vertically compressed nature of the typeface seems clear, as does the distinctly shaped "R" that matches the pilot version of the big E model.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

alensatemybuick said:


> Apologies if I did not make it clear, but Mr,. Shaw (and later I) was talking about the orignal decal sheet used for the Galileo filming miniature (there are a few of these still in existence), not the marking on the full-size mockup. The point about the typeface was more of an aside anyway, though I think there is a "head-on" shot of the Galileo entering the hangar bay that shows the horizontally compressed, pilot style typeface (which differs from that used on the mock-up).
> 
> *ON EDIT*: best photo I could find on the web is a bit grainy, but after cropping and magnifying, even with the loss of resolution, the vertically compressed nature of the typeface seems clear, as does the distinctly shaped "R" that matches the pilot version of the big E model.


And to keep the fires burning, I suddenly wonder if this, as well, had the 'slightly thicker on one side' N as the Enterprise. Probably no real way to tell from photos.


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

alensatemybuick said:


> *ON EDIT*: best photo I could find on the web is a bit grainy, but after cropping and magnifying, even with the loss of resolution, the vertically compressed nature of the typeface seems clear, as does the distinctly shaped "R" that matches the pilot version of the big E model.


Don't forget that you're seeing the font on a sloped surface which will exaggerate the vertical compression.

---------------


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

That makes a lot of sense...but I still *think* I see the pilot style "R" on that shot of the original Galileo model (and anyway I know it to be the case, as I've seen the original decal sheet).


----------



## feek61 (Aug 26, 2006)

alensatemybuick said:


> Here's a question: the original decal sheet Shaw is basing his Galileo marking on depicts alternate markings for the Columbus, including a big "3" which would indicate the registry for the Columbus was intended to be NCC-1701/3. In the remastered version of "The Galileo Seven", the Columbus is shown with registry NCC-1701/2, and I have seen many a similar reference on the interweb. Who knows where exactly that information came from / was based on. But my question is: can the original decal sheet be used to definitively say the Columbus was #3? I myself am inclined to say yes.
> 
> Also interesting to note is that while the registry numbers / letters for the Galileo appear to use the regular series typeface, the lettering for "U.S.S. Enterprise" appears to be based on a vertically compressed version of the pilot typeface, as is most obvious based on the shape of the letter "R".


The original decal sheet for the studio miniature also had decals for "Columbus" and the registry number "3". Here is the original decal sheet:


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

Yes, that is what I said in my previous post (and even hyperlinked to your post containing that image on trekbbs). What I was asking is if people agreed that the original decal sheet is proof positive the Columbus registry was NCC-1701/3. I personally think so (and it looks like you for one agree). Its is certainly information that was not known by many until very recently (and probably *still* not very many).

I found the following, attributed to Paul Newitt, from an article written on the CulttTV man site at the time of Richard Datin's passing (http://culttvman.com/main/richard-datin-builder-of-the-enterprise-1929-2011)



> "Richard was gracious enough to provide me with a scan of the decal sheet for the original Galileo model, too."


So Mr. Newitt was clearly aware going back some years. But he must not have told the people who worked on the Remastered "Galileo Seven".


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

One thing that many of us did for the 1/350 Enterprise was to pre-purchase it. The 1701 Club was a nifty idea and it gave R2 a firm commitment for upwards of 1000 kits pre-sold. I wonder.... if they did this again for the Shuttlecraft, how many of us would again pony up the money in advance. How many who have lost faith in R2's product announcements would back such a production in the here and now?

BTW, just wrote a nice little (well....2 page, I tend to ramble) letter to Tom Lowe, sending to the address posted earlier in this thread. I urge others to do the same. It's not a huge expense, but might just make this kit a reality.

Tib


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Tiberious said:


> One thing that many of us did for the 1/350 Enterprise was to pre-purchase it. The 1701 Club was a nifty idea and it gave R2 a firm commitment for upwards of 1000 kits pre-sold. I wonder.... if they did this again for the Shuttlecraft, how many of us would again pony up the money in advance. How many who have lost faith in R2's product announcements would back such a production in the here and now?
> 
> BTW, just wrote a nice little (well....2 page, I tend to ramble) letter to Tom Lowe, sending to the address posted earlier in this thread. I urge others to do the same. It's not a huge expense, but might just make this kit a reality.
> 
> Tib


That's good, well done! But a bit of advice if I may, for others.

Try to keep your letter to one page. Make sure your address and phone number are on it. Try to keep 'fanspeak' to a minimum, none at all is best. Be respectful, not chatty. Speak in terms of how they can make money, not that they 'owe us' or anything of that nature. CHECK AND RECHECK YOUR SPELLING AND GRAMMAR!!!!!

These are basic fandom activism techniques to help get your letter and opinion noticed. The one page thing is pretty important, actually. You're taking up another person's time when you send a letter and if you go on to a multi-page screed it'll get glanced at and you may get a generic "thank you for your letter, your opinion is very important to us" reply and your letter went into the trash. 

(two pages should be OK, this is a model company dealing in 'thousands and hundreds', not a network dealing in 'tens of thousands '.)

Ah, the old days of FanAc, getting the letters out, the smell of ditto machine ink...


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

The "1701 Club" was not prepurchasing. You simply signed up with your INTENTION of purchasing the special edition version of kit when available. No money changed hands until the kit was ready to ship.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Paulbo said:


> The "1701 Club" was not prepurchasing. You simply signed up with your INTENTION of purchasing the special edition version of kit when available. No money changed hands until the kit was ready to ship.


Sounds right ... and we only got our t-shirts when the model was ready to ship and we confirmed the credit card payment? 
(So long ago ...)


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

If you were at Wonderfest the one year you got the t-shirt when you signed up for the club and letter of intent, didn't need the purchase at the time to get the t-shirt.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

So Cybermodeler has an MPC Galileo 7 in 1/32 scale listed as coming out this year:

http://www.cybermodeler.com/special/kit_space_subj.shtml

Is MPC just an error, and it's the old AMT version? Maybe they're dressing up the old kit with some resin parts, or some newly-tooled figures? Thoughts?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

And is it too early to assume it's maybe April Fool's on that sensitive subject? 

I mean, it SHOULD be listed as AMT, so...


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

It's such a touchy subject...I'd be kinda surprised if it was an April Fools joke...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RB said:


> It's such a touchy subject...I'd be kinda surprised if it was an April Fools joke...


We live in a culture that proves time and again some people can just be completely tone deaf on some things. It would not shock me at all if this was one of those times. 

Saying that, a re-pop of the AMT Galileo kit would still be welcomed by a good number. But no matter what they'd better be ready to take some heat. Just sayin'.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

A repop of the original 1999 Eagle kit was OK- it was used to help gauge interest in a larger all new tool kit. It was a decent model which with some work could built up real nice.

A repop of the original Galileo kit would be a mistake IMO. It was horrible from top to bottom- the hull bore no resemblance to the subject. About the only parts which could be used would be the nacelles if you wanted to correct the kit. I am afraid a repop would go over so badly it would actually discourage R2 from considering a larger all new tool kit.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Richard Baker said:


> A repop of the original Galileo kit would be a mistake IMO. It was horrible from top to bottom- the hull bore no resemblance to the subject. About the only parts which could be used would be the nacelles if you wanted to correct the kit. I am afraid a repop would go over so badly it would actually discourage R2 from considering a larger all new tool kit.


Exactly! It would be worse than a mistake, it would be an inexcusable insult in this day and age of technology to release such a mis-kit! Good grief, demolish the templates of that AMT abomination!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

On the other hand, they did re-pop the Exploration Set, and THAT, in my eyes, is even more horrible. Yet, it is a part of 'Trek modeling history', it made some people really happy for sheer nostalgia.

Maybe an apples/oranges comparison. Still valid to consider.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> On the other hand, they did re-pop the Exploration Set, and THAT, in my eyes, is even more horrible. Yet, it is a part of 'Trek modeling history', it made some people really happy for sheer nostalgia.
> 
> Maybe an apples/oranges comparison. Still valid to consider.


Why? For "sheer nostalgia" there are dozens of the AMT kits available on Ebay.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Didn't the repop of the old Space 1999 Eagle help pay for the great new 22" kit?
Hmmmm.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Proper2 said:


> Why? For "sheer nostalgia" there are dozens of the AMT kits available on Ebay.


Seriously - I think I have four of them in the stash.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

John P said:


> Seriously - I think I have four of them in the stash.


Yes, I want one too. But not to build (God forbid), just for 70's nostalgia and the box art. :tongue:


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

Was just looking over that New Kit Releases table, and it was last updated March 29th, a little early for April Fool's.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

Just emailed Michael Benolkin at Cybermodeler. He said the listing is there for when Round 2 returns to the project in the future. So it's definitely in the "TBA" category.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

RB said:


> Just emailed Michael Benolkin at Cybermodeler. He said the listing is there for when Round 2 returns to the project in the future. So it's definitely in the "TBA" category.


Bwahahahahaha!! It is a fool's joke after all! Good like on that wait.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Proper2 said:


> Why? For "sheer nostalgia" there are dozens of the AMT kits available on Ebay.


But the whole world (or, in this case, North America) doesn't LOOK at eBay. There's many that do, sure, but not everybody. Mind, since there are hardly any hobby shops around anymore I don't know how the 'general mass public interested in nostalgia purchases' would FIND the dang thing...

(and how many of those kits on eBay are actually the repressing pretending to be the vintage kit? I fear THAT was the target market for the release.  )


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

KUROK said:


> Didn't the repop of the old Space 1999 Eagle help pay for the great new 22" kit?
> Hmmmm.


Not pay for but to determine interest. 
Space 1999 is another of those shows with a big following and they wanted to make sure people would be really interested in an new Eagle kit before going through the expense of a new tooling. Since they already had the molds for the original one they just reworked the decals fo the first release, then later offered the special edition with Lab Pod and spine booster. It sold suprisingly well.

Problem is that hte Eagle could be made to look pretty good with just a skilled paint job and look very good if you cut out the solid cages. The kit was 80% there.
The AMT Galileo was horrible. The irony is that AMT built the set prop for the show so they could have a model kit from it. I think somewhere in the creation process some executive decided that the kit needed to be simplified into as few pieces as possible. It was done in the days where box scale and 'close enough' was the standard for scifi kits.

I am afraid pulling an 'Eagle Marketing Test' will not work for this kit- it is so far off that no-one can make it look good unless you discard 90% of the kit and scratch build your own hull. If the Repopped Shuttle does not sell well it would give Round 2 the mistaken impression there is little interest in a new tooled kit and they will just bury the project.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> But the whole world (or, in this case, North America) doesn't LOOK at eBay. There's many that do, sure, but not everybody. Mind, since there are hardly any hobby shops around anymore I don't know how the 'general mass public interested in nostalgia purchases' would FIND the dang thing...


I don't agree with the first sentence and I agree with the third. As the Trump would say: "There are many, many more people in the world who shop the Ebay than the hobby store. That I can tell you!" :freak:

But it's all academic because according to post #270 a re-pop ain't gonna happen. Wait for it...


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

.....

Why...is that Smiley...hitting that donkey in the genitals?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Steve H said:


> Why...is that Smiley...hitting that donkey in the genitals?


It has to be done. He takes no pleasure in it.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

SteveR said:


> It has to be done. He takes no pleasure in it.


:jest:


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

feek61 said:


> The original decal sheet for the studio miniature also had decals for "Columbus" and the registry number "3". Here is the original decal sheet:


The same "vertically compressed" version of the font used for "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE" (with the "R" resembling that on the pilot version of the 11 foot Enterprise model) on that original decal sheet used on the Galileo filming miniature was also used on the box art for the AMT model (though not on the decal sheet that came with that kit):










AMT built the original filming model, IIRC...odd that the model kit would be so inaccurate, yet somehow the "ENTERPRISE" font from the original decal sheet was so accurately reproduced on the box art?!

And looking through my "archives", I found this old unused iron-on I've had for neary 40 years; note the font of "U.S.S. ENTERPRISE":



It is interesting (to me!) that this very distinctive version of the font (compared to the 3/4 scale mockup) only recently realized by most of us (or just me?) to have been used on the Galileo filming miniature has apparently been staring us in the face for years.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I don't know if AMT had built the actual filming miniature, the fact that there is such a difference between it and the model kit (compared to the so-called 'Klingon Cruiser' history) leads me to believe it's not the case, but even if AMT did build it, this discrepancy can make sense. 

(I know Datin made the hanger bay miniature..hey, I've got that book, let me...OK, he says AMT made the miniature of the Galileo, he just had to repair it. Fair enough. Books are wonderful.)

For one thing, and man it bothers me this is happening, my memory is becoming shaky on these things, I recall the Galileo kit came out after Star Trek left the air. Long after. AMT had undergone at least one restructuring.

If they didn't pantograph off the miniature when it was made and cut steel then, they had no way to save that, no digital file, no punch tape. So when they DID finally decide to make the kit they had to build a new master, they likely, obviously, simplified like mad, and we got what we got. 

Also, while there may have been desires of making money off selling kits so it was a good investment to build stuff for the show (set/prop piece, possibly the filming miniature) they clearly thought they were doing well enough from Enterprise sales that there was no rush to make the kit. They COULD have made that while the ST series was still on NBC but they didn't. 

So then, can we speculate that if AMT had put more of a 'push' on releasing a model of the Galileo, get that on shelves while the show was still in production and on the air, would it have been more accurate? Unknown. It comes down to the needs of keeping everything reasonable for the mold technology of the time. I suspect the surprisingly complex shape relationships would have been a huge stumbling block that would have required many more parts and a more complex assembly design then would have been desirable.


----------

