# Whither Star Trek at RC2?



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Is there anybody who can get us something resembling a straight answer regarding RC2's plans and/or intentions regarding the Star Trek license? So far, I've seen the rumor mill buzz a blue streak with everyone more certain than the last that we're about to be ushered back into the wilderness.

*Can somebody who actually KNOWS something please speak up!?!*

Thank you. :freak:


----------



## Otto69 (Jan 2, 2004)

/emote waves hand, "Those are not the kits you are looking for."


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I think the question needs to be expanded to include not just Star Trek, but all science fiction and horror figure and vehicle kits. I've asked in the past and gotten no response.

Huzz


----------



## JamesDFarrow (Sep 18, 1999)

We no speck english.


----------



## Capt_L_Hogthrob (Apr 28, 2005)

Don't be too surprised if we see the refit with NASCAR or a number 3 slapped on the side of it!


----------



## lisfan (Feb 15, 1999)

as sargent shultz would say" i know nothing ,i see nothing,and i say nothinnnnnnnng " http://www.hogansheroesfanclub.com/multimedia/sounds/schultzIKnowNothingISeeNothingAndISayNothing.wav


----------



## lisfan (Feb 15, 1999)

i hope they listen like polar lights did to us


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

Would Paramount just stand by if RC2 stopped making Star Trek model kits while holding the license (especially a long term license - like 10 year or better). My understanding is that Paramount will not allow a company to buy a license to just sit on it. Paramount is penning another Trek film to be released sometime in 2007, so they don't feel Trek is finished. As a result I don't think they intend on abandoning the franchise and no longer wish to PROTECT that property. Did'nt Ertl, when they had the license, have to start producing more Trek kits (because they had not produced anything new for a long period of time) under threat of having the license pulled? If RC2 (and I stress only if) stopped making Trek kits, could'nt we put pressure on them by informing Paramount that the license is being sat on?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> If RC2 (and I stress only if) stopped making Trek kits, couldn't we put pressure on them by informing Paramount that the license is being sat on?


Oh yeah. That's a good way to get RC2 back into business- 
extortion! :drunk:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

There's an interesting rumor that the next Trek film project is just something to keep Rick Berman busy until his contract expires and he retires from Paramount, never meant to be actually filmed. :lol:


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

John P said:


> There's an interesting rumor that the next Trek film project is just something to keep Rick Berman busy until his contract expires and he retires from Paramount, never meant to be actually filmed. :lol:


Star Trek: Riverdance!


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Why dont you just start building all the Star Trek kits you have?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

But then I won't have any!


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

There are NO long term (10 year) licenses. 
Licenses are usually three years in duration.
There are guaranteed payments attached to licenses, licensees have to pay substantial dollars for a license, they can't afford to just "sit" on a license.

Dave


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So, either way, it'd be financial suicide to just arbitrarily shut down the Star Trek line, is that the gist of it?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Who me worried?


----------



## chunkeymonkey (May 4, 2004)

Captain April said:


> So, either way, it'd be financial suicide to just arbitrarily shut down the Star Trek line, is that the gist of it?


Another question is, how long do they have on the current license ?

with respect to styrene kits, there is no current star trek activity to warrant rc2 to develop new kits or re-pop old kits, shame really. if a new trek film does appear then there is the extra interest in sci-fi to make if profitable for rc2 to re-pop and develop new stuff.

i assume the refit etc... were kits that were honoured by rc2 after the take over of polar lights.

what some people seem to forget is that rc2 is a company who want to make money and i cant see them sitting on a current license because they will lose money and no doubt there would be legal implications too.

I think we all want to know the future of sci-fi kits in general and no just from rc2.

maybe rc2 dont quite know where to go next with the trek license and therefore have nothing to say on this matter but it is a shame they dont talk to their buying public by having a rc2 rep on the sci-fi forums, it would be a cheap way to get some market research done would'nt it.

like falconkits said earlier, let's build some kits and then in a few months time we might have an answer.

only time will tell.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

And if it's only a 3 year license, and RC2 has no interest in keeping it, that's all the sooner they can just let it lapse. Maybe the little NX is the final project, after which the license will conveniently go away for them and they can get back to concentrating on little toy cars.


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Dave Metzner said:


> Licenses are usually three years in duration.


Aren't we way past three years by now or does the license not start until the release of the first kit (which was abouty 2 years ago).

Jim


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Like I said in another thread.


----------



## irocer (Aug 22, 2000)

Got to remember they owe us nothing and most license deals and plans are very close to the chest. This is not PL and we should stop thinking of RC2 like PL. They will do what they do based on what the bean counter says will be successful for the company. Any input we had or influnce this board enjoyed, no longer exists. PL was a private venture, as such it did things very differently than a large corp. like RC2. I reget the sellout and complete dismantlement at PL as much as anybody, but it is done and over. We should not continuely hammer away at RC2 for info, getting hopes up that they will respond or care. I am happy the BB still gets sponsorship, but that is all I think RC2 is going to do for us. We should be happy with what we had here and replish its memory until the next great thing comes along (RC2 ain't it). Not bashing or stepping on toes-just my two centsworth.


----------



## BatToys (Feb 4, 2002)

If I hear anything, will let you know.


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

To the best of my knowledge the license is in it's third year now. 
I understand that RC-2 has negotiated an extension.
I still believe that there will be more Trek related kits released.
I assume that RC-2 will be re-issuing several old kits. I do not have any information as to which kits might be re-issued. 
I do know that most, if not all the old tools still exist. I would not be surprised to see some of them back on the shelves within the next year.

Dave


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

Thank you Dave for that insite !


----------



## JamesDFarrow (Sep 18, 1999)

I don't see any problem with getting an extension on the licence and it should, IMO, be granted. I don't think Paramount could find any fault with the products released so far. The vast majority of people seem pleased with what has come out so far. And it keeps Star Trek in view.

The only "wrench" I can see is that Paramount might want more money as RC is a much larger company than PL was. They may not get the same deal PL got.

James (who will be happy with whatever kits they do, and is also really looking forward to Series 3 & 4 of the JL Trek Diecast)


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thanks Dave. Any news is better than none. I prefer new releases, but some of the AMT kits I never bought, I would like to get.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Dave,

Thank you very much for the information in your post where you said:

"To the best of my knowledge the license is in it's third year now. 
I understand that RC-2 has negotiated an extension.
I still believe that there will be more Trek related kits released.
I assume that RC-2 will be re-issuing several old kits. I do not have any information as to which kits might be re-issued. 
I do know that most, if not all the old tools still exist. I would not be surprised to see some of them back on the shelves within the next year."

May I ask though, when you said "I assume that RC-2 will be re-issuing several old kits", were you referring to Trek kits in particular or general sci fi etc?

Thanks again.

Huzz


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

Trek kits...........
They really only have significant catalogues of tooling for two sci fi properties of note.....
Star Wars and Trek---- they've just re-issued several Star Wars kits...
I would not be shocked if they re-issue several old trek kits......

Dave


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

If RC2 has negotiated an extension just to repop some old AMT/Ertl kits...well that just sucks too much to be believed. We've had thirty years of that and enough was enough. PL upped the ante in terms of what's now acceptable and given a choice between a horribly flawed 18in. TOS _E_ equally bad 22in. refit against PL's little 1/1000 gem and 1/350 treasure there's no question which we'd opt to buy. And while the kits of latter years from AMT/Ertl were certainly better they're of subjects of mostly little demand--I didn't buy them then and I sure as hell won't buy them now.


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Maybe just maybe we'll see the k-7 or Spock w/snakes....now that would be cool


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Warped9, thanks for your opinion, but I don't believe everyone here feels the same. I, too, would like to see the Spock w/snakes, and the Exploration set, as well as the Romulan BOP re-released. Maybe, just maybe, they might see fit to fix some of the problems in their old kits. I hold no "secret" information, just the hope that they will. If they don't, there are lots of articles on the Internet about fixing them myself.


After all, our hobby isn't just about building kits...it's about hopes and dreams, too!

Larry


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Spock with snakes, yeah, okay, maybe that I'd go for. But there really isn't much beyond that.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Hey! That's a start!

:thumbsup: 

Larry


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

I'm just holding out hope that the 1:1000 line will continue. The _only_ other 1:350 scale Trek kit I would buy would be the TOS 1701 ... but that's just me.

I found it interesting that RC2 holds licenses for three of the top contemporary Sci-Fi subjects ... those being (in no particular order) Star Trek (through Polar Lights), Star Wars (through AMT/Ertl) and Battlestar Galactica (through AMT/Ertl).

I don't know if the Galactica license is for TOS or the new show (or even if they're one in the same license through Universal Pictures) ... but it would seem that they have us by our collective cohonies!!

Warped9 was right about one thing ... the bar *has* been raised. The question that remains is ... Can, or better yet..._Will_ RC2 meet the challenge??


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It's been said that the Spock kit was modified for the TMP release, with the new uniform, and the snakes removed. Those are the molds that (may) exist now. The original configuration is gone for good.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yuch! I didn't like the TMP version of the Spock kit--I wouldn't buy that.

TOS OR NOTHIN'! :lol:


----------



## THRUSH Central (Feb 20, 2003)

Soooooo, How about "Big Astro Boy?"


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

mactrek said:


> I'm just holding out hope that the 1:1000 line will continue. The _only_ other 1:350 scale Trek kit I would buy would be the TOS 1701 ... but that's just me.
> 
> I found it interesting that RC2 holds licenses for three of the top contemporary Sci-Fi subjects ... those being (in no particular order) Star Trek (through Polar Lights), Star Wars (through AMT/Ertl) and Battlestar Galactica (through AMT/Ertl).
> 
> ...


 Two out of three - Revellogram has Galactica, not RC2.

And I'm with Warped - now that the bar has been raised, let's not let it go down. "I'll be happy with whatever they give us" is exactly what RC WANTS us to say. You say that, _but they hear _"Give me the cheapest crap you can. As long as it says 'Star Trek' on it, I'll buy it."

*WRONG!!!
*
1000 and 350 scale, super accurate detail, alternate version options - THAT'S the new standard. Let's do what we can to keep it there!

If what Dave says is true about them extending the license, then without a doubt, the next thing we should focus on is getting a TOS 350 out of them.

The only thing RC understands is *$$$$$. *Fire up Google and look for statements and stories everywhere you can from other Trek license holders for other product lines. I don't have the numbers handy, but from a consumer perspective, easiest and most immediate proof of that I can think of off the top is the Art Asylum figures. They couldn't give the ENT figures away, TOS ones sold so fast they never had a chance to collect dust. I'm sure the same has been true over the years for books, video games, tapes/DVD's, and various other product lines.

Bottom line is that *TOS SELLS, NO MATTER WHEN THE PRODUCT IS RELEASED.

*By the same token though, it sells *BETTER* and *MORE OFTEN* when it's *QUALITY* product, not some cheap $1.99 schlock thrown together on some guy's kitchen table in an hour at 2AM on a Wednesday after he just got home from a drinking contest.

I think I speak for most people here when I say that I'm perfecty willing to spend big money on a TOS 350 kit - *IF THE FINAL PRODUCT IS OF SUFFICIENT QUALITY TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSE.*


----------



## Capt_L_Hogthrob (Apr 28, 2005)

I've said it before, And I'll say it again. I would like the line of Trek kits go forward instead of backwards. Don't get me wrong, some of the old AMT kits were okay, And some I would actually mind having again. But I would like to see something new. Something like an interchangable bridge from the first 3 films. Like TOS E you have a choice of which bridge you would like to build. Or some of the other areas of The Enterprise. Engine room, transporter room etc. etc. Or figure kits in the movie uniforms. The classic ones are cool and all, but move ahead some. Just go forward. Some may agree, some may ignore this, but this is how I feel. Realistically, we may never see these or anything new from thne trek line, but like it was said before, It's alright to dream. "Heavy SIGH"........Okay, shoot me NOW!!! :drunk:


----------



## BatToys (Feb 4, 2002)

The best news would be if RC2 retained the services of Thomas Sasser.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

In light of the 1:1000 line, the only AMT repops that makes sense are the Excelsior and the Enterprise-B, since they're both in that scale and are resonably accurate.

Anything of that scale, paging Dr. Sasser....


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

If memory serves, when RC acquired AMT/Ertl they dumped a _lot_ of Star Trek and Star Wars kits through Big Lots and other liquidators. Reliants, Cutaway Enterprises, Klingon Birds of Prey, Jabba's Throne Room, Encounter with Yoda, etc. 

Years passed, and eventually they repopped some of the Star Wars kits. No Trek reissues because PL held the license.

Now, RC has licenses for both Star Wars _and_ Star Trek. In acquiring PL, they've once again dumped warehouse stock into liquidation. We should have seen it coming.

While they don't seem enthusiastic about releasing any _new_ kits from these properties, RC has shown a willingness to use existing molds if demand warrants. New Star Wars movie -- repackaged reissues of kits. New Star Trek -- well, there isn't any new Star Trek. Not for a while anyway, though RC may decide to try some 40th anniversary marketing. But their history doesn't appear to warrant an expectation of _new_ SF or pop culture model kits.

Anything already coming down the pike may see the light of day. Anything that hasn't yet strapped its boots on likely won't.

Polar Lights gave us a second 'Golden Age of Aurora,' and for that I will always be grateful. How wonderful it is to have these monster and SF kits back again (along with several great new ones) -- for myself, for my son, and (through a little stockpiling) for his son, as well. But it seems 1976 has come again, and the return to my youth is over. I can live with that. 

Just my opinion.

Shane


----------



## Quintillus (Jul 2, 2002)

Take a look at other AMT/ Ertl offerings. Their car models have long been considered inferior to those of Revell, yet they have made no real effort to improve (except in the sense that all models have gotten better over the years). They are barely even producing new kits: they just take old kits, add some new details (like lowrider wheels) and market those. 

They've hit the jackpot with their licenses: _Rides_ and _American Hot Rod_ lines means old kits with new parts, _Dukes of Hazzard_ movie means those old kits again (and we all know the General Lee is the wrong Charger, and has been forever, but they keep releasing it). New Star Wars movies means they re-issue old kits that have nothing to do with the current movie. Even the Nascar kits this year are only re-decorated versions of previous year's kits.

Why should trek be any different? I don't know anything real, but just based upon this year's offerings my guess would be re-popped kits in celebration of the 40th Anniversary. I certainly wouldn't mind a second stab at some of the older kits, but as stated above, I don't want to be limited to that.

What about all you guys that have been loading up on kits of e*B*a*y only to see them re-released and on sale 50% off at Hobby Lobby this next year?


----------



## chunkeymonkey (May 4, 2004)

Dave Metzner said:


> To the best of my knowledge the license is in it's third year now.
> I understand that RC-2 has negotiated an extension.
> I still believe that there will be more Trek related kits released.
> I assume that RC-2 will be re-issuing several old kits. I do not have any information as to which kits might be re-issued.
> ...


what dave says here is very sensible and at least a more optimistic look to the future.

i too think they will re-issue kits, but when the time is right eg ertl star wars kits re-issued on the back of episode 3.

re-issuing kits so close after the refit was released does'nt make sense as they wouldnt be able to maximise their profit and sales.

let's just see what the next 6 to 12 months brings.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

It seems some people just can't hear the facts thru the haze of opinion...

RC2 did NOT dump the Star Trek line when it bought out AMT/Ertl. AMT/Ertl did it to make the company more attractive for purchase. This has been beaten to death in this forum.

Similarly, the recent "dumping" of PL kits to Big Lots for liquidation. These were, for the most part, kits that had already been discontinued before RC2 bought PL. The Marvel kits, for example, were discontinued because PL's license had expired. Same goes for the Lost In Space kits. I don't know about the Bond kits, it wasn't discussed here.

If there are RC2 employees reading this forum, they can't escape the feeling that we sit around all day HATING them. I sure get that message, and I don't work for RC2. Do any of you truly HATE RC2? Sure, they made mistakes (some more glaring than others) in some of their kits, but can't we get over that and go on? Would you rather they just pack it in and discontinue all of the non-car kits? I for one would like to encourage them, with constructive critisism, to make better models that I want to buy. They don't have to listen to anyone but their stockholders. If it came to a vote in the next stockholder meeting to dump or keep the non-car kits, which way do you think it would go? I think the stockholders, appraised of the profits of the two lines, would probably vote to dump the non-car lines in favor of decreased expenses and increased profits. Most people who buy small amounts of stock do not care what the company does so long as their dividends increase. (I work for a large mid-western credit union, and one of the services we offer members is a discount brokerage. I've spoken to some of our brokers about stocks like RC2 and they tell me that most buyers purchase it because it's a good investment. They are a conservative company with an eye toward increasing stockholder value. Thus, stockholders in RC2 don't care if they make Star Trek or Star Wars kits. They only care that their investments grow.

The point of this tirade? Let your dislike of RC2 go. Let's let them prove themselves to us like PL did, clean slate. Let's not berate them for things they had no hand in. Yes, be wary, as you would any company. Check out their current line and if it's not to your liking, discuss it here in a constructive fashion.

I'm gonna go sit down for a while. Tirades make me tired!

Larry


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

THRUSH Central said:


> Soooooo, How about "Big Astro Boy?"


 Got one already.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

LGFugate said:


> If there are RC2 employees reading this forum, they can't escape the feeling that we sit around all day HATING them. I sure get that message, and I don't work for RC2. Do any of you truly HATE RC2? Sure, they made mistakes (some more glaring than others) in some of their kits, but can't we get over that and go on?


I can deal with mistakes being made. I CAN'T deal with not correcting the mistakes.


> Would you rather they just pack it in and discontinue all of the non-car kits?


No, of course not, but right now, our opinions ain't worth much...keep reading.


> I would like to encourage them, with constructive critisism, to make better models that I want to buy.


As would I, as stated in my post above, but...


> They don't have to listen to anyone but their stockholders. If it came to a vote in the next stockholder meeting to dump or keep the non-car kits, which way do you think it would go? I think the stockholders, appraised of the profits of the two lines, would probably vote to dump the non-car lines in favor of decreased expenses and increased profits.


This part has always confused me. If a line is profitable, it's profitable...end of story. What difference does it make if it makes more or less profit than another product line.


> Most people who buy small amounts of stock do not care what the company does so long as their dividends increase. (I work for a large mid-western credit union, and one of the services we offer members is a discount brokerage. I've spoken to some of our brokers about stocks like RC2 and they tell me that most buyers purchase it because it's a good investment. They are a conservative company with an eye toward increasing stockholder value. Thus, stockholders in RC2 don't care if they make Star Trek or Star Wars kits. They only care that their investments grow.


So, in the end it's profits first, customer satisfaction second. No news there.
Now, this is the part that gets me...


> The point of this tirade? Let your dislike of RC2 go. Let's let them prove themselves to us like PL did, clean slate. Let's not berate them for things they had no hand in. Yes, be wary, as you would any company. Check out their current line and if it's not to your liking, discuss it here in a constructive fashion.


Do ya see the inherent conflict of interests here?

You say to let them prove themselves to us.

What if they have NO INTEREST in proving themselves to us? You said yourself that if you're not a majority stockholder, your opinion holds as much impact as that of the proverbial fly hitting the windsheild at 60MPH.

So, if they don't care about our opinions, where does that leave us?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Check out JamesDFarrow's post from today. Apparently we aren't being completely forsaken.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Ziz, my point was that I and I'm sure many others on this forum, am tired of the constant RC2 bashing. Why should they correct their "mistakes", when people buy the kits anyway? (Or, conversely, DON'T buy the kits...) Next time you're in a WalMart, ask the fellow who is looking at the car kits if he cares that there is a error in the details of a kit. I have, and they don't. We care, because the subject matter is near and dear to us. But, as modelers, we can research and correct the flaws to make the kit better than it was designed to be.

But, from the company's perspective, it is not profitable to retool the kit to correct the flaws. PL did, after a fashion, and before they were bought, correct the D-7's neck boom problem, but no one else would have. 

Case in point - When Revell brought out their original 1/96th scale Apollo capsule and Lunar Module kit, it was based on approved concepts, not the actual blueprints. They produced a Block 1 capsule because that was what NASA said they were going to use. The LM was not accurate either. Even years later, when they re-popped them for the various anniversaries, and the actual designs had been thoroughly documented, they did not modify the kit to fix the problem. It just wasn't profitable to do so in their judgement. They even used the same molds for the 1/96th scale Saturn V, once again, because it was less expensive and more profitable than making new, more accurate molds.

To answer your final question, "Where does that leave us?", I'd say in the same place we were before Tom Lowe and Polar Lights came along. They bought the company, and hired Tom, but they didn't want his caring attitude. They probably don't feel that the profits justify the expenses of doing so on their scale. I miss PL sooo much, but I'm not willing to condemn RC2. Yet. Let's see what they do first. The re-issuing of some of the newer old Star Trek kits is a good start, in my opinion. I want a Spock!!!! (I grok Spock?)

Larry


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

In short, they saw a profitable company, bought it, then promptly destroyed precisely what made it profitable in the first place.

I hate bean counters.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Captain April said:


> In short, they saw a profitable company, bought it, then promptly destroyed precisely what made it profitable in the first place.


 No, no, no. They saw aanother die cast car company competing with them. A die cast car company bought out another company in order to own their die cast car division, and thus eliminate them as competition and gain their product lines and profits for themselves, PERIOD.

Everything else that Playing Mantis owned besides Johnny Lightning - Polar Lights especially - didn't even factor in the decision to buy the company. RC2 ONLY wanted to knock Johnny Lightning out of the competition and get their product for themselves. That's it.

Any revenue they might get by deciding to continue PL product lines is extra gravy, and totally optional to the original intent of the purchase.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Same thing that's going on with banks. Once upon a time, I had five credit cards owned by 5 separate, COMPETING banks. Now, they are all "Chase." And now they all suck, because Chase sucks, because they are becoming an "800-pound gorilla" and nobody in the government seems to have the stones to say "no" to yet another "merger."

Rant mode off.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

I _wasn't_ bashing RC2. I _don't_ hate RC2. I said _nothing_ to indicate I thought RC2 was a bad company.

The fact remains that they haven't produced _new_ SF model kit products through the companies they've acquired. They sometimes re-release kits using existing molds, but thus far they haven't created a _new_ Star Trek or Star Wars kit -- at least, not to my knowledge.

We can expect repops from them, but nothing more. We'll have opportunities to pick up kits we missed the first time around, but shouldn't get our hopes up for models we haven't already seen.

Shane


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

LGFugate said:


> Case in point - When Revell brought out their original 1/96th scale Apollo capsule and Lunar Module kit, it was based on approved concepts, not the actual blueprints. They produced a Block 1 capsule because that was what NASA said they were going to use. The LM was not accurate either. Even years later, when they re-popped them for the various anniversaries, and the actual designs had been thoroughly documented, they did not modify the kit to fix the problem. It just wasn't profitable to do so in their judgement. They even used the same molds for the 1/96th scale Saturn V, once again, because it was less expensive and more profitable than making new, more accurate molds.


I doubt anyone at Revell has any idea that there is a difference between their model and the spacecraft that flew. While money may be a factor, ignorance of actual NASA history probably is a bigger one.

They don't know the difference between Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, either.

Shane


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

lastguardian said:


> I _wasn't_ bashing RC2. I _don't_ hate RC2. I said _nothing_ to indicate I thought RC2 was a bad company.
> 
> The fact remains that they haven't produced _new_ SF model kit products through the companies they've acquired. They sometimes re-release kits using existing molds, but thus far they haven't created a _new_ Star Trek or Star Wars kit -- at least, not to my knowledge.
> 
> ...


 Actually, Shane, they're promising three new Star wars kits based on Ep One, and a couple of die casts (big surprise) from same, late this year.

You might be able count the refit and 1/1000 NX as RC2 projects, even thought they're just allowing the last PL projects to be finished.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Aren't there some Episode III kits soon to be offered by AMT? Or am I confusing them with the Revell Germany kits?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

John P said:


> Actually, Shane, they're promising three new Star wars kits based on Ep One, and a couple of die casts (big surprise) from same, late this year.


_Episode I?_ Interesting, and a little scary. That film wasn't exactly a fan favorite, and I'm afraid poor sales there would be interpreted as, "Obviously, no one wants new Star Wars kits."



John P said:


> You might be able count the refit and 1/1000 NX as RC2 projects, even thought they're just allowing the last PL projects to be finished.


I don't really consider them RC2 projects since they were already in the pipeline, RC2 didn't make the initial decision to produce them, and to stop them at such a late stage would have been to take a loss.

However, I am grateful they they did indeed allow them to go ahead. 

Shane


----------



## chunkeymonkey (May 4, 2004)

chunkeymonkey said:


> what dave says here is very sensible and at least a more optimistic look to the future.
> 
> i too think they will re-issue kits, but when the time is right eg ertl star wars kits re-issued on the back of episode 3.
> 
> ...


No sooner do we talk about it than it happens.... :freak: :freak: 

now i look forward to getting my hands on a ent b,c & e 1/2500 kit without having to pay £40 ($80). i'm hoping that i can get the re-issues here in the uk.


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

John P said:


> Got one already.


Wow John Your "Kimba" There is Hot! looks like we both got lucky! You got Angelina Jolie and I got Gloria Estefan! LoL

JOHN/LONFAN oh btw nice Astro Kid Too! lol


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

lastguardian said:


> _Episode I?_ Interesting, and a little scary. That film wasn't exactly a fan favorite, and I'm afraid poor sales there would be interpreted as, "Obviously, no one wants new Star Wars kits."
> 
> 
> I don't really consider them RC2 projects since they were already in the pipeline, RC2 didn't make the initial decision to produce them, and to stop them at such a late stage would have been to take a loss.
> ...


 My mistake, Shane, I meant to say Episode _Three._ Brain fart.
They're making Anakin's starfighter (just like Revell already did), and a big ugly ground tank that was in 5 seconds of footage on the Wookie planet. Forgot what the third was supposed to be.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

Ziz said:


> Two out of three - Revellogram has Galactica, not RC2.


Revell/Monogram may also have "a" license ... but so does RC2. check this out: http://www.rc2corp.com/company/hobby_2005.asp Page 33 clearly has Galactica merchandise listed there. Granted, they are _not_ models, but models may be included in that license. 

Dont take it the wrong way, Ziz ... I'm not trying to argue ... just inform, and get information myself. I have no idea how these licenses work but it's pretty safe to assume that if RC2 can now re-pop old AMT/Ertl kits because they now have control of a Star Trek license (through P/L) they _might_ be able to do something model-wise with Galactica (however unlikely that may be).


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Sorry, Shane, I misinterpreted your first line in that message. You weren't bashing RC2, just repeating a bit of uban legend. I guess I just get upset that a lot of folks jump first and ask questions later. It happened during the PL buyout, and it's been running ever since.

I promise I'll read these messages closer in the future!

Larry


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

mactrek said:


> Revell/Monogram may also have "a" license ... but so does RC2. check this out: http://www.rc2corp.com/company/hobby_2005.asp Page 33 clearly has Galactica merchandise listed there. Granted, they are _not_ models, but models may be included in that license.


 The way I understand licensing, it's always for one thing specifically - model kits, OR die cast - OR toys, OR etc....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I want my 1:350 TOS Enterprise, dagnabbit....


----------



## JamesDFarrow (Sep 18, 1999)

I would like a 1/24th Galileo w/interior and w/figures (6) please.

Thanks,

James


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yes and yes. :thumbsup:


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

John P said:


> The way I understand licensing, it's always for one thing specifically - model kits, OR die cast - OR toys, OR etc....


Thanks for the info John!


----------

