# Revell Force Awakens Poe's X-Wing



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

I got all four kits from Revell. 2 I goy at the midnight opening last night, and 2 are coming from Amazon. I know many people on here have been complaining about the lack of detail, but these are geared towards kids. I actually think it is not all that bad. With a little detail work it will look quite nice. Here are some pics and a video.














https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL-Qj61uSp4


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

It's not such a bad kit. I like what they did to update the look of the X-Wings in The Force Awakens.


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

That style is a insult to what a decent X-Wing Fighter should be like,
give me the classic styles of ships from the Classic 6 Episodes Star
Wars Movies any day.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

crowe-t said:


> It's not such a bad kit. I like what they did to update the look of the X-Wings in The Force Awakens.


They actually went retro, this is Ralph McQuarrie's painting of the Death Star Trench battle from 1975:


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

crowe-t said:


> It's not such a bad kit. I like what they did 0to update the look of the X-Wings in The Force Awakens.


 I don't! This is a true insult to the Star Wars franchise...



WOI said:


> That style is a insult to what a decent X-Wing Fighter should be like,
> give me the classic styles of ships from the Classic 6 Episodes Star
> Wars Movies any day.


Preach on, brother! Preach on. This should at least look like what the original X-wing should have been instead of a loose interpretation. Maybe I'll build a couple of mine once I get the masters all finished, and in resin form, and send them to Disney once painted so that they can see that the spirit of the TRUE ILM modeler still alive! Maybe they can use them for their next movie!



BWolfe said:


> They actually went retro, this is Ralph McQuarrie's painting of the Death Star Trench battle from 1975:


Only in a loose form of this ship. There are a few things missing from the Disney version.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

crowe-t said:


> It's not such a bad kit. I like what they did to update the look of the X-Wings in The Force Awakens.


As someone who grew up while the original trilogy was still being made, I still prefer the original design. But that aside, I'm inclined to agree. I'd have _loved_ to have a kit like this back when I was 5. 



Dyonisis said:


> I don't! This is a true insult to the Star Wars franchise...
> 
> ...This should at least look like what the original X-wing should have been instead of a loose interpretation....


Since these new films are presumably taking place ~40 years after the originals, I don't really have a problem with new designs that are influenced by the old ones. I look at it much the same way as I do the differences between the F-15 and the F-22. One looks like an updated version of the other, which visually seems to have taken many overall design cues from the predecessor. 

And as far as insults to the franchise goes, I truly can't imagine how _anything_ Disney would do could end up being worse than what Lucas himself had done to it since 1997.

In short, I haven't felt this optimistic for the franchise in 20 years. Prior to last year I'd pretty well (and reluctantly) written the entire thing off as unsalvageable.



> Only in a loose form of this ship. There are a few things missing from the Disney version.


It looks to be closer to the original design than the 1970s version was, so I can't really fault it there. Though neither have really "nailed" McQuarrie's interpretation anyway.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

The new X-Wing is starting to grow on me.
Hell, it's been 30 years since the destruction of the Death Star II, it's reasonable to assume that designs would be upgraded.

Look at nuBSG. In 50 years, they went from the Viper Mk. II to the Viper Mk. VII.

I reckon some people don't like change.


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

I agree. Wow some very strong feelings about the kits and all.
We need to ask ourselves....How old were we in 1977 and if these 
kits get only a handful of kids building then thats a good thing! 
Im looking forward to the new film...just hoping for less jarjar and
muppet type influences. Dont get me wrong....I love the real MUPPETS...but not in
my sci-fi.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I was a kid back in '77, actually, I was 10. The SW models I had back then we're better and more detailed than the SW models a 10 year old has today. Plus I had to glue and paint mine. Today, a 10 year old literally, as has been expressed here, can build one in a minute. Not sure how that teaches one to get into "model building", rather, this is how quick you can build a toy.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

I dunno. Doesn't matter. After the Round 2 Eagle Transporter, I can finally retire from this hobby. Once I build that, I can die happy.


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

robiwon said:


> I was a kid back in '77, actually, I was 10. The SW models I had back then we're better and more detailed than the SW models a 10 year old has today.


Really? Nostalgia can be a powerful thing, making something out to be much better than it truly was.
The manufacturing of kits today has VASTLY improved, computer aided design and manufacture has produced kits that have nice detail and fit like a glove. AMT was the maker of a lot of Star Wars kits at that time, and they weren't churning out things with good detail or correct shapes (AMT Refit Enterprise anyone?). Also there were huge gaps, and things didn't align well.
True, we did have to build and paint it ourselves, but were the kits themselves better? Unfortunately I no longer have those kits around to compare.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

TIEbomber1967 said:


> Really? Nostalgia can be a powerful thing, making something out to be much better than it truly was.
> The manufacturing of kits today has VASTLY improved, computer aided design and manufacture has produced kits that have nice detail and fit like a glove. AMT was the maker of a lot of Star Wars kits at that time, and they weren't churning out things with good detail or correct shapes (AMT Refit Enterprise anyone?). Also there were huge gaps, and things didn't align well.
> True, we did have to build and paint it ourselves, but were the kits themselves better? Unfortunately I no longer have those kits around to compare.


I still have the very first kit I assembled on my own, unsupervised, at age 4-5 (before I could read). It was a Monogram Snap-Tite F-4 Phantom II in 1/72 scale (#1102). It's the only kit to have survived my childhood.

And I can say without a doubt that no, the kit was not better than what we have today. While it isn't the worst kit I've ever assembled by a longshot - It has, by today's standards, _serious_ fit and accuracy problems. 

Even if I were inclined to strip it all down today and apply an additional 35 years of building experience to it - cut pins, use glue and filler, and paint it with an airbrush - it would be better, but it still wouldn't be all that great built OOB.

But all of that aside, so what if a kid throws this together and treats it as a toy? Who didn't at that age? I had a 1/48 P-40 that I absolutely loved that ended up scattered over the lawn because I tripped while "flying" (running with) it in the backyard.

The important thing is that they put it together _and_ get enjoyment out of it, both during and after the process. 

I imagine that's what got most of us hooked in the beginning, and everyone has to start somewhere.

As a more experienced modeler, I still enjoy 'getting back to my roots' and throwing together something simple like that from time to time. Or sometimes I'll use it as a base and take the opportunity to focus on scratchbuilding details or go for a really intricate paintjob. 

To be honest, I'd rather spend my effort doing those kinds of things to a basic but well fitting kit, than devoting most of my effort to fighting poor geometry in just getting it assembled. 

What modeler has ever said, "You know, my favorite part of the process is the endless filling and sanding of an ill-fitting kit!"? :jest:


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

What an ugly color combination. The first thing I thought after seeing it was "Peanut butter". And if it is mean to be stealthy than why are parts of it bright orange? Just odd... it's like they were trying to evoke the feeling of the '70's with that color scheme.


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

FlyingBrickyard said:


> In short, I haven't felt this optimistic for the franchise in 20 years. Prior to last year I'd pretty well (and reluctantly) written the entire thing off as unsalvageable.
> 
> 
> 
> It looks to be closer to the original design than the 1970s version was, so I can't really fault it there. Though neither have really "nailed" McQuarrie's interpretation anyway.


 I can't say that I disagree with you there, but I think we all just about wrote off the '97 version of the original movies, but now Disney has decided that they should re-release another version of the originals on DVD. Does anyone here know if these are the unbutchered versions, or just a rehashment of the Georges' short sighted mistake (one of many)? Ralph McQuarries' vision was actually loosely based on Georges' description of what he thought the X-wing fighter should look like. There's a picture floating around of the first draft of the X - only it was black, and it was mostly wings with a tiny fuselage in the middle of them. The beginning of anything we now know as the final product always goes through the development stage before becoming what you see in the end. Lots of things go through this, it's just a part of the process. What the original ILM guys did was what George had in mind all along. He worked with them closely agreeing, and disagreeing before they got what he wanted in the end. Let me post a picture of the beginning of this before it was finalized so that you can see what I'm talking about. 



fluke said:


> I agree. Wow some very strong feelings about the kits and all.
> We need to ask ourselves....How old were we in 1977 and if these
> kits get only a handful of kids building then thats a good thing!
> Im looking forward to the new film...just hoping for less jarjar and
> ...


AGREED! WHOLEHEARTEDLY.



TIEbomber1967 said:


> To be honest, I'd rather spend my effort doing those kinds of things to a basic but well fitting kit, than devoting most of my effort to fighting poor geometry in just getting it assembled.
> 
> What modeler has ever said, "You know, my favorite part of the process is the endless filling and sanding of an ill-fitting kit!"? :jest:


Been there, done that. I flew a few kits around, but they got blown up inside the house while defending the people I love. I remember wrestling around with kits that had missing parts like the Chevy van that I got from a neighbor that used to work for K-mart when it was Kreskey's, and after they had sold it after changing the name. It had everything in the box (SEALED) except for the body that should've come with it! And don't get me started about the mis-shapened parts, missing decals, etc that I've found in various kits! If there's one crapper in a million - I'd get it. :drunk: Even if I reached WAAAYYYY into the back of the shelf God would make sure that the one I got had something either missing, or wrong with it. 



Seashark said:


> What an ugly color combination. The first thing I thought after seeing it was "Peanut butter". And if it is mean to be stealthy than why are parts of it bright orange? Just odd... it's like they were trying to evoke the feeling of the '70's with that color scheme.


Do you remember the ugly green, yellow, mauve, pink, orange, blue, and red colours that they used TOGETHER for furniture, telephones, cars, and WALLPAPER?!! Boy, now that you've said that it brings back memories of my childhood that I don't want to remember!!!! I loved some things about the seventies, but that's one area of my life I'd rather forget! I've had my share of gaudiness, and silly ideas, but the clothes, colours, and styles of the seventies.......

~ Chris ​


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

The re-issue of the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy on Blu-ray and DVD are on the FOX label, not Disney. FOX has the home video distribution rights to these trilogies through 2020. 

I think it's safe to say it's MOTS.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

fluke said:


> Im looking forward to the new film...just hoping for less jarjar and
> muppet type influences. Dont get me wrong....I love the real MUPPETS...but not in my sci-fi.


Less JarJar would be very good, but I'd honestly prefer muppets to CGI. The practical effects Yoda was vastly superior to any of the CGI versions. So I'll only disagree here insofar as I want _proper_ use of muppets. Nothing gratuitous like JarJar.

Though much as I love muppet Yoda, I still can't help but hear Fozzie Bear and Grover in there every time he talks. 



Dyonisis said:


> ...now Disney has decided that they should re-release another version of the originals on DVD. Does anyone here know if these are the unbutchered versions, or just a rehashment of the Georges' short sighted mistake...?


Can't say I know for sure, but given George's open hostility to the unaltered originals toward the end there, I actually feel like Disney gives us our best hope of finally, officially getting the versions we've always wanted.

Disney may be an overprotective PITA when it comes to stuff they own, but one thing is certain. Disney *loves* money. Lots and lots of money. And there's no way they paid 4 billion dollars for the rights without major plans to exploit it.

I think it's why we've seen the floodgates reopened on a lot of the original trilogy merchandise recently, and I'm certain they're aware of the demand for remastered but otherwise unaltered versions of the original trilogy.

It wouldn't surprise me if they're working on making that happen even as we speak, and are just waiting for Fox's rights to expire so they can release it. Unlike George, Disney has no Deathstar sized ego tied up in this to get in the way of giving the fans what they really want. It's a potential gold mine, and they know it. 




> Ralph McQuarries'...first draft of the X... was black, and it was mostly wings with a tiny fuselage in the middle of them... Let me post a picture of the beginning of this before it was finalized so that you can see what I'm talking about.


I'd love to see it. I think maybe I did see it once, many years ago, but my memory is hazy on that. I always like seeing how designs evolve from first concept to execution.


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

It took me forever to dig this photo. I thought I had this on my main computer, but I just found out that I was wrong. At any rate, I hope that you can see this is an actual ILM X-wing with a different nosecone. It was too hard to cast this with this design, so the nosecone you see now is what Joe Johnston, and Lorne Peterson agreed on. Joe said that "they had to work at it to make it not look so phalic" in reference to the nosecone, and the fuselage. The Saturn V engine housings weren't shaved, and refined in this picture. The main form with the wing armatures were what was established at this time. This picture was taken in February of 1975. There were many takes on this fuselage before they got the one you see on screen now. 

~ Chris ​


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

FlyingBrickyard said:


> ...Can't say I know for sure, but given George's open hostility to the unaltered originals toward the end there, I actually feel like Disney gives us our best hope of finally, officially getting the versions we've always wanted.
> 
> Disney may be an overprotective PITA when it comes to stuff they own, but one thing is certain. Disney *loves* money. Lots and lots of money. And there's no way they paid 4 billion dollars for the rights without major plans to exploit it.
> 
> I think it's why we've seen the floodgates reopened on a lot of the original trilogy merchandise recently, and I'm certain they're aware of the demand for remastered but otherwise unaltered versions of the original trilogy...


Allegedly, when Lucas sold Star Wars (and everything else) to Disney, part of the legal deal was that they could not release the original unaltered theatrical versions of the Original Trilogy movies on any medium (film, videotape, DVD, Blu-Ray, digital media, cave paintings, whatever) until after Lucas is dead and gone. Even then, the rights to _The Empire Strikes Back_ and _Return of the Jedi_ revert to Disney in 2020, but Fox owns the rights to _A New Hope_ forever, or until _they_ decide to sell those rights. So one way or another, Disney will have to negotiate with _someone_ if they decide they ever want to release the unaltered theatrical versions of those movies.

Regardless, everyone involved knows there is demand for the original theatrical versions of those movies, but the real question is whether or not Disney believes the demand will generate enough sales to cover the costs of re-producing them.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I still have my OT "originals" on VHS.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I had to sell all of mine due to money issues- still regret it.


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

Zombie_61 said:


> Allegedly, when Lucas sold Star Wars (and everything else) to Disney, part of the legal deal was that they could not release the original unaltered theatrical versions of the Original Trilogy movies on any medium (film, videotape, DVD, Blu-Ray, digital media, *cave paintings*, whatever) until after Lucas is dead and gone.


 CAVE PAINTINGS!!!! HA! Zombie - you rock!!!!:roll: This made me laugh out loud, but then I read the rest of your post. _THAT _made me sad. 

Thanks for the info. I had no idea that is was this bad - _STILL_ !!!


~ Chris ​


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

To reel in Harrison and the rest to act in this film I can not
help but think that they must have liked the overall plot and script 
some what? ....lol....besides the probable ridiculous amount of cash :tongue:


----------



## Dyonisis (Nov 11, 2009)

fluke said:


> To reel in Harrison and the rest to act in this film I can not
> help but think that they must have liked the overall plot and script
> some what? ....lol....besides the probable ridiculous amount of cash :tongue:


 One word: *CASH! *You hit the monkey right on the head with that one. There's no doubt that they sweetened the pot for old Harry to reappear, him and Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher as well as any one else from the original film (who's still alive), who is lucky enough to do so!


~ Chris​


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

fluke said:


> To reel in Harrison and the rest to act in this film I can not
> help but think that they must have liked the overall plot and script
> some what? ....lol....besides the probable ridiculous amount of cash :tongue:


Actually, Lucas personally asked Ford, Hamill and Fisher to be in the film and they said yes before the sale to Disney. This was back when Michael Arndt was writing the movie. After the sale, Kathleen Kennedy hired JJ and JJ decided to bring in Kasdan (who was hired to write the Han Solo movie) to scrap Arndt's script and start over. So the big three were on board before there even was a script for the movie we'll see. And yes, they're undoubtedly getting mounds of cash.


----------

