Jump to content


Photo

2017 SDCC Exclusive


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#41 DSTZach

DSTZach

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • VIP
  • 696 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:49 PM

As you can see, there is an absolute consensus among all serious Trek fans about which ships are good, which ships are bad and where we should be focusing our attention. :D

 

It's incredible to me to see a serious fan suggest that we go back and make new versions of the ships that are our best-sellers, and introduced so many fans to our line. As others have noted, the NUMBER ONE complaint about this ship from Trek fans online -- more than accuracy, I would say -- is that it is another Enterprise refit. We are apparently being cheap and lazy by offering a "repaint" of the same ship. But I do not think a newly sculpted A, or TOS, or D, would be received much better. People like those ships, they display them all in a row, none of them are asking us to make them all over again.

 

Even if 1701D is correct about the proportions of the TOS, problems other knowledgeable fans apparently do not see, I seriously doubt any new version we put out would live up to that kind of scrutiny.

 

I also don't understand why weight is such a factor with people. I know people like die-cast, I know people want perceived value, but I simply don't see why a toy being too light is seen as a negative. If the D were lighter, the stands would last a lot longer.

 

I am fairly certain this ship will do well. I think it will do better than the green Defiant, because it is an Enterprise. I think it will also do better than if it had a smashed saucer section. I think it would even do better than a fully painted Enterprise with a smashed saucer section -- at least at SDCC, where the casual buyer and Trek fan (who maybe does not have an Enterprise already) would find a whole ship more appealing than a partial one. Long-term, maybe the latter would do better, but it would NEED to, because the only way we could do a new saucer would be if we did an entire run of them, like any new ship, in the thousands, not hundreds. 

 

And it is a far world away from Star Trek, most days, but there are actually designer toy fans who just love to get licensed toys in crazy colorways. I honestly think the collective is simply unaware of the existence of the casual Trek fan, who does not rigidly adhere to screen accuracy.

 

So, someone calling the product "horrific" is more entertaining I guess. Probably everyone posting here has shelled out hundreds if not thousands of dollars for DST over the years. Keep that in mind when you're being sarcastic to us.

 

Nigel, I honestly have zero idea what you're talking about. Nobody has been sarcastic to you, least of all me.

 

The fully cloaked BoP was just a clear piece of plastic. 

 

I think people here lost their minds when they found out it would be an exclusive. It was a beautiful piece, it made sense, and it was screen accurate. I bet we could have sold a lot more than we made.



#42 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 09 June 2017 - 05:12 AM

As you can see, there is an absolute consensus among all serious Trek fans about which ships are good, which ships are bad and where we should be focusing our attention. :D
 
It's incredible to me to see a serious fan suggest that we go back and make new versions of the ships that are our best-sellers, and introduced so many fans to our line. As others have noted, the NUMBER ONE complaint about this ship from Trek fans online -- more than accuracy, I would say -- is that it is another Enterprise refit. We are apparently being cheap and lazy by offering a "repaint" of the same ship. But I do not think a newly sculpted A, or TOS, or D, would be received much better. People like those ships, they display them all in a row, none of them are asking us to make them all over again.
 
Even if 1701D is correct about the proportions of the TOS, problems other knowledgeable fans apparently do not see, I seriously doubt any new version we put out would live up to that kind of scrutiny.


Now now Zach, play nice 😉.

I think you should be focused on both. Both improving your old ships and creating new ones. Two ships a year has long been your own dream. 15 ghostbusters figures plus that huge diorama piece was also achievable so it's not a long shot to suggest that you bring your biggest sellers back into dry dock for an overhaul to make them even better... they'd sell it seems.

I do appreciate that no one is asking for newly sculpted versions of these ships. No one cares, I get it. It shouldn't though put you off from improving upon them, fully understanding that short of going to the actual 11 foot filming model and using 3D scanning tech or going to wherever the 6ft Enterprise D model and scanning that too, your ships are going to be approximations at best, but there may come a time when the classic and the d's mould breaks, at that point, maybe improve upon the design of your toy.
 

I also don't understand why weight is such a factor with people. I know people like die-cast, I know people want perceived value, but I simply don't see why a toy being too light is seen as a negative. If the D were lighter, the stands would last a lot longer.


Weight = quality, simple as that. As for your stands, it's long been said that they are crap, maybe you should think about issuing a more robust stand for each of these ships...
 

I am fairly certain this ship will do well. I think it will do better than the green Defiant, because it is an Enterprise. I think it will also do better than if it had a smashed saucer section. I think it would even do better than a fully painted Enterprise with a smashed saucer section -- at least at SDCC, where the casual buyer and Trek fan (who maybe does not have an Enterprise already) would find a whole ship more appealing than a partial one. Long-term, maybe the latter would do better, but it would NEED to, because the only way we could do a new saucer would be if we did an entire run of them, like any new ship, in the thousands, not hundreds.


I don't doubt that it'll sell. I don't think quite as well as the clear cloaked BoP or the Defiant but we'll see. I think you might be falling into the trap the studio's have fallen into, that casual Star Trek fans don't care as much about the detail. You may be right but they still expect quality.
 

And it is a far world away from Star Trek, most days, but there are actually designer toy fans who just love to get licensed toys in crazy colorways. I honestly think the collective is simply unaware of the existence of the casual Trek fan, who does not rigidly adhere to screen accuracy


I think we all are aware that the die-hard Star Trek fans are in the minority, I certainly get that DST are doing Star Trek for the casuals, where accuracy isn't everything and where the consumer may only buy one or two items from your range. That's cool, but as someone who religiously bought all of the Art Asylum stuff back in the 2000's, I must say that I am selective with DST's stuff because not all of it is made to a high standard. Accuracy would be great but quality is everything. For me your Klingon Bird of Prey is the pinnacle of quality. It has heft to it, its robust and that's all I want;

I want an awesome lights and sound plastic Enterprise D that is robust, hefty (which it is) and made to a high standard. The D I got a few weeks ago is so far from the quality of the Klingon Bird of Prey. there are gaps along the saucers edge, the screw covers seem to stick out from the hull and the printed windows are shambollic... as are the thrusters, which, the last time I checked, aren't just orange blobs.

All I expect from DST is consistency. You did a great job with the NX-01, had you placed the registry in the correct place on the A, the reissue of the A would of been a great job too. I hope to god that your reissue of the Refit Enterprise doesn't use the same translucent plastic tat you used and that you've learnt from that mistake too.

Consistency Zach, that's all. And consistently good not bad.

#43 DSTZach

DSTZach

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • VIP
  • 696 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 June 2017 - 06:46 AM

Now now Zach, play nice .

I think you should be focused on both. Both improving your old ships and creating new ones. Two ships a year has long been your own dream. 15 ghostbusters figures plus that huge diorama piece was also achievable so it's not a long shot to suggest that you bring your biggest sellers back into dry dock for an overhaul to make them even better... they'd sell it seems.

I do appreciate that no one is asking for newly sculpted versions of these ships. No one cares, I get it. It shouldn't though put you off from improving upon them, fully understanding that short of going to the actual 11 foot filming model and using 3D scanning tech or going to wherever the 6ft Enterprise D model and scanning that too, your ships are going to be approximations at best, but there may come a time when the classic and the d's mould breaks, at that point, maybe improve upon the design of your toy.
 

 

I do not know how many more impressions we have left in each mold, but depending on the material, they do not really deteriorate. Some molds can be made of of lesser metal and actually wear out, but I do not think these are that kind. I do not know if any of the older ships continue to sell in sufficient numbers for us to justify going back and re-tooling them, as that immediately requires a high number of orders to amortize the cost.

 

Aside from tooling, we do improve our ships, or try to, with every run. If you got a ship with problems -- and I'm talking about detectable-by-a-human problems, now -- then you should contact customer service.

 

Weight = quality, simple as that. As for your stands, it's long been said that they are crap, maybe you should think about issuing a more robust stand for each of these ships...
 

I don't doubt that it'll sell. I don't think quite as well as the clear cloaked BoP or the Defiant but we'll see. I think you might be falling into the trap the studio's have fallen into, that casual Star Trek fans don't care as much about the detail. You may be right but they still expect quality.

 

Casual fans care about detail, as in a detailed item, but generally not as much about THE DETAILS, which is what makes them casual fans, and not the guy with the micrometer out and his finger on the pause button. And weight does not = quality. Weight might = value, to you and to others who feel like they are getting their money's worth when they buy a heavy toy, but it is also a function of size, scale and manufacturing requirements. I do not think there is any way to actually MAKE the TOS (or TWoK) Enterprise heavier. The saucer and nacelles have wiring inside, engineering has batteries, so it's not like we can fill them up with plastic. In fact, if the saucer and nacelles got any heavier, I think you would start to see sagging in the neck and struts, because unless you replace them with metal, those supports would eventually bend.

 

And sure, casual Trek fans care about quality -- our products are generally high-quality. So I do not see quality being an issue in this case. You can say something LOOKS low-quality, but that is subjective, and it also cannot be judged without having the product in hand. Otherwise, you are talking about concept, or design.



#44 Reign1701A

Reign1701A

    Action figure anonymous member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 07:46 AM

 People like those ships, they display them all in a row, none of them are asking us to make them all over again.

 

Well, I for one would love a refit or 1701-A that has a proper lights-on function, as the new 1701-A release has lights that only stay on for 5 seconds. A TMP edition-refit (with matching sound/voice clips) would be swell.



#45 DSTZach

DSTZach

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • VIP
  • 696 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 June 2017 - 11:07 AM

I'm not sure how many fans would replace their existing ships with those versions. In fact, the minute most fans heard we were working on a new edition of the refit/A, there would be an outcry, based on what I've seen in the last couple of days.

 

Oh, and since there are people changing their opinions about the exclusive on Twitter, I wanted to make sure everyone knew that this Final Flight ship is TRANSLUCENT. It is cast in orange plastic, not painted orange. LIKE the DEFIANT. Apparently, some people did not read the TrekMovie/TrekCore/DiamondSelectToys.com articles about the ship, and just looked at the picture. The picture is of a translucent production sample, but there is no real way to tell.

 

Hope that changes some minds! I will try to get one to shoot.



#46 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 09 June 2017 - 11:35 AM

I'm looking forward to seeing some proper photos of it. 

 

I don't expect it to change my mind, but I still want to see what it actually looks like. 



#47 DSTZach

DSTZach

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • VIP
  • 696 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 June 2017 - 11:44 AM

The pictures on white are what it actually looks like, I believe they are production samples. You just can't see that it's translucent because it was shot on a monochrome background. The crashing pic is photoshopped from those pics, so the translucency is not apparent on that, either.

 

FinalFlightEnterpriseWStand.jpg



#48 Reign1701A

Reign1701A

    Action figure anonymous member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 05:28 PM

I'm not sure how many fans would replace their existing ships with those versions. In fact, the minute most fans heard we were working on a new edition of the refit/A, there would be an outcry, based on what I've seen in the last couple of days.I


Well, I wouldn't overestimate the outcry of a small segment of customers. To counter your point, the new NX-01 (with the new paint job and electronics) was met with acclaim and replaced the old AA version on most people's shelves. I'm sure I'm not the only one who bought multiple TOS E's (original release, HD version, light HD version, newest release with bridge sounds, etc). Also, I'm likely biased (profile pic gives it away), but the refit E/A is probably the most popular design in the franchise. I don't think you can have too many releases and variants of the refit/A design.

All that being said, I'm not a fan of battle-damaged ships in general, so I'll likely pass on this release. I appreciate you guys trying to do something different and bold though.

#49 BadBunnyMike

BadBunnyMike

    Wishes He had Spots

  • Members
  • 2,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stockton, California

Posted 09 June 2017 - 06:07 PM

Well Zach, I love the thing! I am glad you keep doing these fun exclusives. Variants that most likely would never have been made except for SDCC. I loved the clear BoP, Defiant, BD Excelsior AND the Gold Enterprise. I can't wait to get one of these.

#50 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 09 June 2017 - 06:17 PM

I really do like that they do these exclusive, just so far none of them have really been for me.

Maybe one day they'll make one I really want, I'd guess it'll either be a variant of Voyager, JJPrise, or the Enterprise C if they ever get made.

#51 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 09 June 2017 - 06:39 PM

Sorry but that looks awful. I'm almost glad that I dont collect dst ships anymore because I would have felt compelled as a completist to buy that horrendous thing.....

#52 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 11:41 PM

I think it is cool. This kind of thing is, to me, cooler than almost all other repaints they've done. But I doubt I will buy one. My closet is already full of those other repaints and I have begun to run low on space. I haven't bought a single trek select and I skipped over the Romulan ship too so I'm with VulcanFanatic on glad my completism no longer compels me. Tempting tho! I like day glo.

#53 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 10 June 2017 - 06:05 AM

 

I also don't understand why weight is such a factor with people. I know people like die-cast, I know people want perceived value, but I simply don't see why a toy being too light is seen as a negative. If the D were lighter, the stands would last a lot longer.

 

 

Actually... I don't care about weight for the ships... but... for the role play the one item where weight came in play were the Klingon Disruptors. The smaller Role Play Items don't matter as much, but for some reason the lack of weight on the Disruptor just throws me out of the fantasy thats its a credible prop like role play... could be just my issue... and its probably fair for me to admit its a combination of the size and weight... but maybe I'll try filling one with some foam or something that adds weight to see if I like it better.



#54 JMW326

JMW326

    If I don't have it, they never made one.

  • Members
  • 4,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 10 June 2017 - 07:03 AM

I agree about the weight. Ships dont bother me as long as they are sturdy and look good. Props however need some heft to them. The Star Trek 3 phaser is a great example. It looks great but when you pick it up, it feels cheap and flimsy even though it really isn't. It takes away from it a bit.

#55 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 10 June 2017 - 08:43 AM

The weight of the ships is completely irrelevant as long as they look good, and sit on their stands well. Which DST's ships do, for the most part. I don't know why, but the new NX-01 hates it's stand, and will fall off if I touch it.

Role play items weight is definitely more important since you're meant to handle them, unlike the ships.

#56 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:59 AM

I'd like to clarify that I have no massive problem with any of the ships (except for the translucent pearlescent WoK Refit), I just think that DST have vastly improved upon the quality in recent years with their new ships; Klingon Bird of Prey and the Romulan Bird of Prey are superb, the D and the original series Enterprise, not so much in my opinion.

I think in general the weight of something does link into the perceived quality of something but doesn't necessarily mean anything.

If DST are cool with the D and the 1701 then fine but at least make a change with your stands. The NX-01 hates its stand and has nothing to do with the weight of the ship, it's the fragility of its stand. Maybe a cradle type stand like the Eaglemoss ships? Or stands like the ones that come with the model kits.

#57 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,461 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:15 AM

I don't have any problems with the peg hole stands.

If they went through and redid all the single arm ball joint stands, and replaced them with dual arm peg hole stands with new battery covers, I'd be perfectly happy.

I'd definitely pay for new stands and battery covers if they did it.

The WoK Enterprise displays much better on a dual arm stand versus the single arm stand it came with originally.
dI2xbOS.jpg

#58 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 10 June 2017 - 12:45 PM

Clear or black stands that are uniformed throughout the line would be great.

#59 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,431 posts

Posted 10 June 2017 - 07:12 PM

Lol..."if the D were lighter the stand would last longer..." Or....if the stand were designed for its job, you mean.

#60 Jay K

Jay K

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.

Posted 10 June 2017 - 07:51 PM

Ship weights aren't a factor for me in the slightest. All I ask is that they're stuck together properly - no big, sloppy gaps. A wobbly decal doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as a wonky nacelle/crooked saucer (looking at my Enterprise-B whilst I type this...).

Completely agree with everyone else regarding the weight of the phasers/props (Trek Tek) though. The heavier the better in this department.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users