Author Topic: Star Trek Starship Collection (Read 3666 times)

ACES_HIGH · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2014, 06:18:15 PM »

Yeah, I just got my first 3 issues.

The magazines were fairly disappointing, they weren't even stapled properly, and it was a pain in the a** to get them into the stupid binder without messing up the spines. I have to agree that the Connie refit is not up to the same quality as the other two I got, Adam is right, there's hardly any windows and the hull is just plain light ghost grey, no aztecing at all, not even the right shade of grey, and what's with that big red square on the shuttlebay doors? Compared to similar scaled entries, like the Johnny Lightning set, it's seriously lacking. The Enterprise-D is somewhat better, it's got aztecing all over, and it's painted roughly the right colors although there's some areas on mine where the paint was scratched and not all of the windows line up with the depressions in the hull, it's still one of the better entries I've seen for the ship in this scale. The Bird of Prey is probably the best I've gotten so far, although I'd have preferred the wings in the attack position, rather then cruise mode, and whoever painted the weathering was a little heavy handed drybrushing the rust details, it almost looks like it's been played with outside for a while. I have 20 year old Hotwheels cars that look less rusted then that.

(on a related note, it makes you fell really old when you can say you've had a certain toy for 20+ years.)

nxadam1701 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2014, 06:23:07 PM »

We have too many pictures online for these people to make such mistakes is beyond me. I'm canceling my subscription. Just not happy.

Adam

ACES_HIGH · « **Reply #22 on:** February 12, 2014, 08:21:52 PM »

yeah, they have pictures in their own magazine that clearly show more detail, I wonder what happened there.

nxadam1701 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 12, 2014, 08:34:24 PM »

Quote from: ACES_HIGH on February 12, 2014, 08:21:52 PM

yeah, they have pictures in their own magazine that clearly show more detail, I wonder what happened there.

I thought I was the only one who noticed that. The detail of the models on the magazines are clearly false. I'm not such a huge stickler for minor details but the details they are missing are a tad bit too much IMHO.

Adam

FarShot · « **Reply #24 on:** February 12, 2014, 10:06:03 PM »

Of all the models I have, the only subpar one is the Constitution. I'm happy with every other one. And comparing the CG models used for renders in the magazines to the production ones isn't fair.

ACES_HIGH · « **Reply #25 on:** February 12, 2014, 10:08:36 PM »

I wouldn't say they're false, no where in the magazine did it say that all the renders are supposed to be exactly the same as the model, and the model photos in the magazines aren't that different from the final product, but you would think that they could have easily used these pretty renders as references for the model.

Tuskin38 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 12, 2014, 10:20:47 PM »

It is funny though for the CG Render of the Nova class they used an image of the Rhode Island.

nxadam1701 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 12, 2014, 11:20:44 PM »

Quote from: ACES_HIGH on February 12, 2014, 10:08:36 PM

I wouldn't say they're false, no where in the magazine did it say that all the renders are supposed to be exactly the same as the model, and the model photos in the magazines aren't that different from the final product, but you would think that they could have easily used these pretty renders as references for the model.

Dude. Let's be realistic now. The pictures are suppose to be the models we clearly see the plastic piece attached to them. The magazine had the phasers painted, windows painted, insignias, my constitution has no markings on the secondary hull, no aft phasers, no windows just the indentations, no Aztec, it's not even smooth. It's so rough like Brillo. It's a terrible job, I would have never bough the subscription has I known the quality would be so low.
I know it doesn't state that but come on, it's a crappy constitution. It's only the iconic ship of several movies. Lol

FarShot · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2014, 11:50:56 PM »

There's only one place in any of the magazines that I have (1-6) that shows what the actual models are supposed to look like, and that's the preview of the coming issue. Everything seems to be either the CG model used for reference, screencaps from the films/TV, or shots of the studio model.

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2014, 12:53:18 AM »

While I agree that the Constitution refit is disappointing, every other ship I've seen pictures and reviews of have been much, much better. Though personally, I would never subscribe due to not having the funds for that or the room. I'd much rather piece-meal my way through the ships, getting ships that I've always wanted models of and have yet to get said models, ie. the upcoming Akira-class and hopefully the Wells-class. For me, ships like the refit 1701, the D, the Reliant, the K'tinga...all have plenty of models out there. I'm following this line for the obscure ships. Or, in the case of the nuEnterprise, the under/badly represented(FU Paramount for giving the license to Playmates...Diamond Select would've made a much higher quality ship.)

ACES_HIGH · « **Reply #30 on:** February 13, 2014, 02:32:51 AM »

Quote from: nxadam1701 on February 12, 2014, 11:20:44 PM

Dude. Let's be realistic now. The pictures are suppose to be the models we clearly see the plastic piece attached to them. The magazine had the phasers painted, windows painted, insignias, my constitution has no markings on the secondary hull, no aft phasers, no windows just the indentations, no Aztec, it's not even smooth. It's so rough like Brillo. It's a terrible job, I would have never bough the subscription has I known the quality would be so low.
I know it doesn't state that but come on, it's a crappy constitution. It's only the iconic ship of several movies. Lol

Maybe yours is a bad model, mine looks pretty much just like the picture of the model on the back page of the Ent-D issue. Granted it's still lacking in detail, but it's not like it's false advertising, if you look at the picture, it's still solid grey and the window indents aren't painted, they're just shadows. Besides, these pretty pictures are usually prototypes, not the production version of the model, you can expect some discrepancies, I'm surprised that mine looks as close to that picture as it is.

I did notice that apparently the machines they use to mold the clear plastic parts have air bubble problems, just about all of the clear parts on the models, as well as the bases all have visible bubbles inside them.

nxadam1701 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 13, 2014, 10:31:28 AM »

I got a box in the mail. Let's see if it's another model. Wish me luck. Lol

Lord Tribble · « **Reply #32 on:** February 22, 2014, 04:10:11 AM »

Couldn't help but notice that one of the Bussards on my Enterprise D is purple rather than red when held up to light

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 06, 2014, 10:06:08 PM »

Part of me wishes I could get every ship in this series. Part of me reminds myself that I don't have the money or room for that. Part of me hates that some of these ships have little bitty flaws that keep them from being fan-freaking-tastic. So, I'm going to have to pick and choose the ships I get. Definitely on my list are the JJ-prise(more on that in a second though), the Akira-class, and the Valdore. If they do the Relativity, that's definitely on my must-have list. Ships I won't get for sure are the refit 1701(have at least two perfectly good models without the fubar plastic on the front of the warp engines), the 1701-D(...I hate the design, next), the 1701-E(again, have a nice big model of it), the Klingon Bird-of-Prey(the fact that they chose to put the wings in cruise instead of battle configuration makes me lament the fact that the wings are static...so, I have the Diamond Select HMS Bounty instead), the K'tinga(Have a comparable model...though replacing it IS somewhat tempting as the Eaglemoss will be more solid), Voyager(Always felt this was a meh starship anyways...), and any Borg ship. Possibles? Well, a few. Big one is the Defiant. The only things holding me back are my personal irritation that they went with the CGI model's orientation of the warp engines(though they didn't oversize the deflector thankfully), and the misprinted pennant on the port nacelle.

And that brings me to my "more" on the JJ-prise. I recently saw a video review of the ship and...if the one I preordered is in the same state, it will only JUST replace my Hot Wheels version. I don't know why this is, but like some of the Quantum Mechanix models of the ship before release of the movie, this person's JJ-prise had wonky warp nacelles. One was dipping slightly. Also, he didn't mention it, but it looked as though the deflector dish was slightly off kilter. Also, few windows were painted on, and the ones that were were off. No windows on the neck or saucer. No shield lines on the saucer rim either. But the thing that irritates me the most is the "decaling". The name and registry on the saucer is perfect. But the registry is MISSING on the underside of the secondary hull and they ADDED registries to the INSIDES of the warp engines! They have the CGI model! How can they make an error this blatant?! And while I love the azteching(it looked GORGEOUS on the guy's video), it would preclude the ability to just paint over the engine registries. And the absence of the secondary hull registry is baffling because the magazine looked like it had an image showing off that they intentionally moved the registries from the underside of the saucer for the movie. That being said. It still looks a million times better than any other non-kit model of the ship released thus far. It has a lot of detailing that the Playmates version missed and has proper aztecs that the DVD model didn't. Hopefully when I get my own, I can give it a more favorable review.

Lord Tribble · « **Reply #34 on:** March 07, 2014, 04:44:35 PM »

at least they fixed the position of the nacelle reg. :/

On startrek.com they've tried to claim that the underside reg was missing in every shot of into darkness when it's clearly not.
Haven't received mine, but pretty disappointed with what I've seen so far

nxadam1701 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 07, 2014, 06:15:46 PM »

I share your concerns, the galaxy class had many errors but maybe it'll get better.

captain_obvious · « **Reply #36 on:** March 07, 2014, 07:24:50 PM »

http://www.startrek-starships.com/usa/ship-order.html

Is it just me, or does the shot of the sovereign class (issue 21) Look familiar? To my eye, it looks rather like Wileys....

nxadam1701 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 07, 2014, 07:34:17 PM »

That nebula has too many windows. I'll tell you that! Hmph. Bonchune CGI Version. Ehhh. These people must of hired Star Wars fans to do there research.

Adam

Nebula · « **Reply #38 on:** March 08, 2014, 12:08:54 AM »

Once you get to Voyager on that list those are all 3d renderings not really representing the models we could get.
Also they stated there will be 70 variations of these ships in the list all together.

Shadowknight1 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 08, 2014, 01:41:21 AM »

Quote from: nxadam1701 on March 07, 2014, 07:34:17 PM

That nebula has too many windows. I'll tell you that! Hmph. Bonchune CGI Version. Ehhh. These people must of hired Star Wars fans to do there research.

Adam

...or they were only given CGI models by CBS and Paramount. I think that's part of the problem with the Defiant.

All that said, I haven't seen any bad reviews of the Akira-class.

News:

Author Topic: Star Trek Starship Collection (Read 3666 times)