Playmates new USS Enterprise new images
#41
Posted 11 April 2009 - 09:08 PM
#42
Posted 11 April 2009 - 09:23 PM
I have to disagree with the sound quality as they are nice and clear. That is Pine and Quinto saying the lines as with the communicator roleplay toy.
#43
Posted 11 April 2009 - 09:25 PM
#44
Posted 11 April 2009 - 09:56 PM
#45
Posted 11 April 2009 - 10:05 PM
#46
Posted 11 April 2009 - 10:33 PM
JonWes,
Very nice video, thanks for making and posting. Can't wait to get mine from Newforce.
#47
Posted 11 April 2009 - 10:37 PM
#48
Posted 11 April 2009 - 11:47 PM
#49
Posted 12 April 2009 - 07:12 AM
By the way, HAPPY EASTER to all on the boards!
#50
Posted 14 April 2009 - 06:11 AM
#51
Posted 14 April 2009 - 05:22 PM
#52
Posted 14 April 2009 - 11:49 PM
#53
Posted 15 April 2009 - 12:50 PM
The paint application on mine is very sloppy, worse than anything I have from DST. Also there are numerous glue runs and spots. On top of all that the screw for the bottom battery compartment was stripped, so it took me a half an hour to get the batts in and replace the screw. I have to say I am pretty dissapointed, not enough to return the thing but really this toy could have been made to a better QC standard. Also, it seems a bit small.
The real strength of this piece is probably it's construction. It feels sturdy, which is nice for those that get one for the kids. I also like the detail work, when you consider that this is a mass market toy the fact that they got the pattern in the impulse exahust, detail at the bottom of the neck and pho-torp detail is rather suprising.
#54
Posted 15 April 2009 - 02:57 PM
The paint application on mine is very sloppy, worse than anything I have from DST. Also there are numerous glue runs and spots. On top of all that the screw for the bottom battery compartment was stripped, so it took me a half an hour to get the batts in and replace the screw. I have to say I am pretty dissapointed, not enough to return the thing but really this toy could have been made to a better QC standard. Also, it seems a bit small.
The real strength of this piece is probably it's construction. It feels sturdy, which is nice for those that get one for the kids. I also like the detail work, when you consider that this is a mass market toy the fact that they got the pattern in the impulse exahust, detail at the bottom of the neck and pho-torp detail is rather suprising.
#55
Posted 15 April 2009 - 03:49 PM
#56
Posted 15 April 2009 - 06:47 PM
Yup, it's the same scale - the saucers are exactly the same size. The new Abramsprise is a bit smaller than the original Jefferiesprise!
#57
Posted 15 April 2009 - 09:27 PM
#58
Posted 15 April 2009 - 09:47 PM
Just my two cents. Thanks for a thorough and thoughtful review!
#59
Posted 15 April 2009 - 10:08 PM
I'm not convinced this ship is smaller than the original. Especially based solely on the scale of two toy ships from two different toy companies that are most likely in two different scales.
When you talk starship scale you have to look at the common elements, windows, thrusters, docking hatches, etc. Looking at the various ships including the TOS E, TMP refit and the JJprise. The most obvious size similarities are between the Refit and the JJprise including everything mentioned above. With that in mind we know the refit saucer has a larger diameter than the saucer on the TOS E, since the JJprise basically lifts the saucer right from the refit it is only logical to surmise that the JJprise is roughly the same size as the TMP refit which is longer and wider than the original E. Therefore the JJprise is slightly larger than the original.
Remember, just because elements of the toys match up does not mean that they alone can be used as reference. Afterall, they're only toys.
#60
Posted 15 April 2009 - 10:38 PM
It seems like a fair review to me, but I will see it really seems like you got an especially bum one. Mine has no smudges at all. There is one SLIGHT bit of misplaced gray paint on one nacelle and that's about it. I don't have any glue problems. I'm a huge fan of the toy. But then again I went into buying it not to expect anything like DST's work, which overall I've very much enjoyed (but again I seem to be uncommonly lucky there as well, not having any warped nacelles or horrible paint jobs on the Enterprises I own so far) and was actually very pleased with how well it turned out.
Now, it is very much a toy, as you mention. It seems sturdily made. The screw holes and the battery compartments (I too wondered why they had two compartments... surely the wiring could have run easily throughout the ship?) are annoying. The legal copy is too. Mine does have some visible seams, but I didn't notice those before people said anything. But for the most part all of that stuff just fades away for me and I'm left with an awesome looking Enterprise with amazing lights. Sometimes light bleed does sort of annoy me (like on my Character Options Flight Control TARDIS) but on this one it doesn't. I think it's because, to me, the parts where the light does bleed sort of just looks like the reflecting light on the ship. Especially around the white lights. I guess I just have the ability to overlook what I see are some necessary evils of toy making but I understand how it could annoy a person. The thing is, toy companies are having to get a LOT better about legal markings these days. I sadly know from personal experience. Especially in the international market. I deal with mostly hobby-grade stuff in my job so we don't have to deal with as much as another toy company might, but even then there's a LOT of extra crap we've had to recently work into our products and packaging just recently. I'm guessing the legal copy couldn't be on the inside of the battery cover because a lot of this stuff is checked visually before toys are allowed to leave China and they're not opening battery covers.
About the price point, I think the comparison to DST is a little unfair because there are a lot of mitigating factors. It depends on the company, but sometimes the cost of a whole line is balanced out not just item by item. DST is obviously very much an item by item company. So each ship's cost is set only by the manufacturing and development costs of that one ship. But with Playmates they probably price things based on the whole line. That way, say, if they know that they really need to charge $40 for the Transporter to be profitable but they ALSO know they can probably only charge around $30 for it they might cut the electronics out of the Bridge and still charge $25 for the Bridge. But that money saved on the Bridge can make-up for the Transporter being less profitable. So the Enterprise might have had some corners cut in this way and it might be making up the cost of some of the other bits of the line. If that makes sense. Another thing to consider is that the licensing fee for the new Star Trek movie is probably MUCH higher then the rights to the older shows. So that might factor in too.
Now, I say all of this but the big question is... does that matter to the consumer? If you get a smudgy gluey toy with no alternate battery cover (almost certainly a victim of cost-cutting) that suffers in comparison to other similar products in the market (even if those products are arguably in a different market altogether technically)... well, I'd say your review is pretty on-target. But I guess I'm giving them a lot more leeway then some because I genuinely enjoy it and I have a LITTLE bit of an idea of why they made some of the decisions they did. My hope is that if this line is a big success that maybe they'll be more comfortable sinking a little more money into the Enterprise for the sequel and addressing some of this.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users