New Revell Imperial Star Destroyer kit?
- Thread starter cellarboy
- Start date
Well no matter how easily it can be corrected, it still shows the quality standard that Revell sets for its kits and the reasearch. In my eyes, it is pure luck that the proportions of these kits are not worse than they are. If they really looked at references, for example the error on the Eta would not have been made. A simple comparison of the snapped together piece (or a CAD render in pre-production) and the original would have been enough to realize that something is wrong. And it also shows that they don't work from the screen-used computer models.
Galactican
Sr Member
In another forum a member mentioned that the ISD in the video I linked to could be a new Hasbro ISD which might explain the soft detail. So there is still hope. 
Gee, I can't wait till Sep 30th..!
Gee, I can't wait till Sep 30th..!
SVTStingRay
Sr Member
In another forum a member mentioned that the ISD in the video I linked to could be a new Hasbro ISD which might explain the soft detail. So there is still hope.
Gee, I can't wait till Sep 30th..!
it looks like one of those collectors fleet isd
Richard Baker
Sr Member
That Collector Fleet ISD (above) was made from an enhanced MPC model kit- I had both to compare. The biggest change was that they actually made a good looking Bridge face with raised detail instead of the flat engraved looking thing that MPC/Ertl kitted.
If they amtch the Venator in level of detail I will be happy, that will help tide me over until Bandai finally released their bigger Star Destroyer kit.
If they amtch the Venator in level of detail I will be happy, that will help tide me over until Bandai finally released their bigger Star Destroyer kit.
Hunk a Junk
Sr Member
I always considered Revell´s Eta-2 and ARC-170 as some of their best kits, at least they have few flaws and so did even the Fine Molds kits (not just little flaws, but severe proportional issues). Might you be so kind to send me a PM and tell me what exactly is wrong with the Eta-2 and ARC-170? I have both kits and would like to correct them if there´s something wrong. Thanks!
It's been a while since I built an Eta-2, but I remember comparing the general proportions between the Ertl version and the Revell and concluded the Ertl was slightly better (even if it didn't have a pilot figure). The "wing" fuselage sections on the sides have a thinner, less toy-like profile on the Ertl. The Revell just seemed chunkier.
Galactican
Sr Member
The problem with Bandai is, their fighters are so damn small. I have the Level 1 TIE and the Level 2 X-Wing from Revell which are about 1/50 scale. Even if they are not quite accurate they do make very nice display pieces. Thank goodness they skipped that ugly "weathering" they tend to apply to the CW kits.
Revell's SD is 16" long with 46 parts:
http://culttvman.com/main/rogue-one-kits-revell/
- - - Updated - - -
Color me cautiously optimistic, but holding out for a Bandai version.
The link above has details on the U-wing and AT-ACT as well.
http://culttvman.com/main/rogue-one-kits-revell/
- - - Updated - - -
Color me cautiously optimistic, but holding out for a Bandai version.
The link above has details on the U-wing and AT-ACT as well.
Hunk a Junk
Sr Member
In some ways an improvement over the old AMT kit, but the landing gear and speaker holes definitely have to g-o. Hard to tell, but the bottom view looks a little narrow/long instead of the wider wedge shape of the ANH star destroyer. We'll see. Possibly useful as a base for modifications, but it's 2016 (almost 2017) and we're still fixing crap that shouldn't have to be fixed if companies made an E-F-F-O-R-T. Any.
For all we know though, the shapes/proportions may be from the digital assets used in Rogue One which could make it comparing it to the ESB one a bit hard.
Those aren't really landing gear, it's supposedly a fold out display stand, but yes, either way, they are really bad and they should have just done a proper stand instead
so basically you can do this
or this
Those aren't really landing gear, it's supposedly a fold out display stand, but yes, either way, they are really bad and they should have just done a proper stand instead
so basically you can do this
or this
Richard Baker
Sr Member
The superstructure/bridge proportions look off to me, still it is a far better kit than Ertl's...
Here is a link to the pictures source. Click on the "Additional Pictures" at the bottom.
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXGHPA&P=ML
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXGHPA&P=ML
Timmythekid
Sr Member
Yeah, I was going to say "STAR DESTROYER!!! I'M BUYING IT!!!" But it definitely looks...off. It's not R1, as the antenna is in the wrong position, and there has absolutely got to be something wrong with the superstructure to hull proportions. That's not easily fixable. And that's before dealing with the various 'features'. God, having waited literally decades for a halfway decent ISD, I can't believe the best offcial thing yet is still the Disney diecast. Come on Bandai!!!!
Similar threads
