TazMan2000
Master Member
Some things have improved. It's not an F but an F+.
TazMan2000
TazMan2000
New Revell Imperial Star Destroyer kit?
- Thread starter cellarboy
- Start date
INVAR
Sr Member
That is NOT a Rogue One/ANH - ISD.
It is in fact an ISD II - from Empire Strikes Back/Jedi.
I might get it if Bandai does not pull through with that vision of an 18" - 24" masterpiece in that video from several months ago, but will certainly have a lot of work to do with fixing stuff like the flip-out legs.
It is in fact an ISD II - from Empire Strikes Back/Jedi.
I might get it if Bandai does not pull through with that vision of an 18" - 24" masterpiece in that video from several months ago, but will certainly have a lot of work to do with fixing stuff like the flip-out legs.
SVTStingRay
Sr Member
+better looking than the original kit
-damn speaker holes and built in landing gear instead of a stand
damn you revell
-damn speaker holes and built in landing gear instead of a stand
damn you revell
Galactican
Sr Member
You are not the only one saying that. Please forgive me but I haven't examined the different versions closely (yet). Could you please tell me which features confirm your assessment? I'm really curious to know...
One of the most obvious signs, to me, is the size of the guns on either side of the super-structure. Another is the lack of 'tabs' on the main engines.
You can see a ton of awesome photos of the ANH version here:
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=B9FE0AEBDC25FDBC&id=B9FE0AEBDC25FDBC!19998
Here is one showing the guns:
View attachment 083_SWI_1614.jpg
Last edited:
hcr
New Member
Last edited:
darth_daniel
Sr Member
Based on the front view of the Revell model and this image and taking the ship´s width as reference, the model´s bridge is roughly 109 % of the width it should be (at least when compared to the ESB model). In the picture in the link the bridge is about the same width as the top terrace of the superstructures, which the kit obviously doesn´t match. Could the superstructures be too low as well? Unfortunately I don´t have a good picture from the side to calculate the ratio of the ship´s length to the superstructure´s length.
And the side trench looks quite narrow...
I´ll wait for pictures of the actual kit parts to decide if I´ll get one for modifying into some random Star Destroyer for my 1/2256 fleet.
Galactican
Sr Member
Thank you very much, guys! 
:thumbsup
:thumbsup
Galactican
Sr Member
I have a bold idea. You should get two of them to have spare parts to close the gaps on the lower hull and double the height of the side walls. A closer inspection of the actual kit parts should reveal if that's possible.
Richard Baker
Sr Member
Just add your own styrene strip the right side wall height, center their detail piece in the middle of it and add your own greebly to fill out the difference.
Side walls are easy, it is fixing the entire superstructure that is a deal killer for me. I would rather wait and get a better Bandai kit later than spend the money to get this Revell and spend so much time rebuilding it. I have lots of other projects I can spend that time on that are much more fun.
Side walls are easy, it is fixing the entire superstructure that is a deal killer for me. I would rather wait and get a better Bandai kit later than spend the money to get this Revell and spend so much time rebuilding it. I have lots of other projects I can spend that time on that are much more fun.
Richard Baker
Sr Member
Trouble is that Revell decided their customers are not us.
Ironic thing is that my son is apparently in the demographic they are now focusing on and he does not like their kits either.
Why should he?... There are cheaper toys with better features. I really hope that they'd read again what a model company whould produce.
Hunk a Junk
Sr Member
My problem with what Revell is doing is that they're acting like a model company that really would rather be in the toy business. In my mind, models and toys are two separate things -- and Revell is intentionally and unnecessarily muddying the waters between the two. Toys are for play. That's their main function. Companies that make toys can try to make their toys look more accurate, if they want, but ultimately it's about using the object for play. Models are different. Models occasionally get some light play usage, but play isn't AND SHOULDN'T BE the goal. An accurate representation of the subject IS THE GOAL. People make models to recreate the original subject -- the airplane, the car, the ship, the spacecraft -- as accurately as possible in miniature. Reality only smaller ("reality" in the case of a sci-fi subject being its on-screen appearance). Revell is getting the entire "model" concept bass-ackwards. If they think there's more profit in toys, then MAKE TOYS and don't call them models! Putting out a product as a "model" and then sneering at the importance of even trying to make the kit look like its subject is just an insult to the whole point of making a model. What's worse is that Revell promoting these kits as "build and play" is just a marketing cover to excuse their lack of quality and effort. They can spend less on research, design, and tooling and then cover their asses by claiming, "Well, younger modelers don't care and only want to play any way." They could make an accurate kit kids can play with just as easily as they can an inaccurate kit -- but it costs more. And that's the key. And that's why what they're doing is wrong. A model company should be in the business of trying to make better and more accurate kits. Not always more complex. Not always more difficult to assemble. Not always less playable. But ALWAYS more accurate. There's no excuse in 2016 to put out kits that don't accurately look like the subject. None. It's worse than laziness. It defeats the entire purpose of making a damn model kit.
I think Hunk of Junk is wrong. While I too want more accurate kits available to us, especially an ISD, but Revell's choice to make kits for kids is actually a good thing for our hobby. It cannot be denied that the average age of modeler's is rapidly increasing. Our hobby must attract a new generation to remain viable. Granted we all want better kits, but companies need to target the video game kids to remain solvent for the future. It may suck, but we need to stop criticizing companies for trying to expand their market base and bring a new generation of modelers into the hobby. What is good for their business now is actually very good for us in the long-term. If Revell wants to be the "entry level" kit company, that's fine with me as most of their kids aren't really that great anyway. Rant over, come on Bandai!
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Timmythekid
Sr Member
You're actually not arguing different sides of the equation here though. He's saying that there's no reason that Revell can't strive for both accuracy AND play-ability, but that they use the 'Build and Play' label to excuse pure laziness in their design work simply to justify not spending the cash a decent representation of the subject would involve. "Play" and "basic accuracy" don't need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, by offering not terribly good looking kits at exorbitant prices, Revell I suspect does more harm than good in terms of encouraging a new generation to get into the hobby - who wants to spend hard-saved allowance on kits that will ultimately be disappointing?
Galactican
Sr Member
Revell's models are undoubtedly a missed opportunity. If they would make the kits more detailed they would catch two flies in one stroke, so-to-speak, because then they would not only appeal to the kids and the occasional modeler but to the semi-pro modeler as well. The reasons for not being more accurate have not been explained yet. Maybe their designers are unable to do so, maybe the license they have prohibits making more accurate kits. We simply don't know.
The same dilemma is happening with Hasbro's 5-POA-figures. Most avid collectors disgust them. But as long as these are bought the company does not have to re-consider their strategy. We (the adult collector / modeler) may like it or not. The only choice we have is to buy them or not.
The same dilemma is happening with Hasbro's 5-POA-figures. Most avid collectors disgust them. But as long as these are bought the company does not have to re-consider their strategy. We (the adult collector / modeler) may like it or not. The only choice we have is to buy them or not.
Similar threads
