SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

10 Worst Sci-fi kits?

12622 views
54 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: México
Posted by SteelSnail on Monday, June 28, 2010 2:37 PM

Though I haven't built one (and judging on the prices at ebay never will) I have to agree on the Alien dropship. A friend of mine had one and the lack of detail was epic and in general it seemed like a bunch of plastic halfway shappen to simulate the picture on the box.

  • Member since
    October 2009
  • From: South La
Posted by Ti4019 on Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:48 AM

not to necro but im going to...

on the AMT death star I put one together quickly with no glue at a club meeting. Got the hemispheres together and JUST as I was getting it all joined and about to lock.....it flew apart!

See! screen accurate!

If you aren't having fun, you're doing it wrong! Build to please yourself and they will flame you every time!

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • From: Fairfield, CA
Posted by El Destructo Inc on Monday, March 1, 2010 1:00 AM

I got some of the original Gundam 0080 kits, nothing like the HGUC but with some detailing and scratchbuilding it'll come out pretty nice.

El Destructo Inc. presents Michael Stoneman
  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: North Dakota
Posted by jason18 on Sunday, January 24, 2010 10:36 AM

The AMT-Ertl X Wing is horrible... I'm working on it right nowSad.  The top and bottom parts of the main body don't fit and the pilot and his arms don't fit and it looks like a figure from a helicopter.  Don't have the misfortune of getting it as an X-mas present!

Jason

On the Bench: 1/48 Esci Agusta-Bell AB.205 Iroquois

                           1/72 Academy Sopwith Camel

 

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Huntington, WV
Posted by Kugai on Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:20 PM

I did find a use for the Jedi snap-togethers you mentioned.  My son and stepson-to-be sre using the stack of these I got on clearance to start developing their kitbuilding skills.  By the time they're good enough to get frustrated with the poor quality of those kits, they'll be ready to make the most of better ones.

http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww122/randysmodels/No%20After%20Market%20Build%20Group/Group%20Badge/GBbadge2.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/razordws/GB%20Badges/WMIIIGBsmall.jpg

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • From: Katy, TX
Posted by Aggieman on Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:10 PM

I always loved the MPC Star Wars kits, the X-wing in particular, and I liked building the original Battlestar Galactica Viper and Raider.  But I believe it was Monogram that put out Buck Rogers kits from the late 70s movie.  Those weren't particularly great kits.  And also around that time were kits from The Black Hole.  The Cygnus was crap.  Back to Galactica, the Galactica and the Base Star were mostly useless piles of wasted plastic.  Didn't like any of the snap-tite kits from Return of the Jedi, and the snowspeeder from The Empire Strikes Back was pretty well done except for those hideous pilot/gunner figures.

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Illinois: Hive of Scum and Villany
Posted by Sprue-ce Goose on Monday, January 11, 2010 6:46 PM

To my eternal regret:  some of the Lindberg Sci-Fi kits and far, far too many of the Star Trek kits.

mea maxima culpa

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Louisville, KY.
Posted by Cosmic J on Monday, December 7, 2009 9:18 AM
 russianfist wrote:

I'm not much of a Sci Fi builder but I will say that I have been really disapointed with many kits offered in the Sci Fi genre.

Space 1999 Eagle: offered by Monagram (I think). Just a sad kit looking like the mold was cut in 3 days and the worst decals ever. This kit almost ruined my love for the TV series

I wanted this to be a good kit, but alas, t'was not to be. I'd still build another, if I could find one for a reasonable price. Better yet, maybe someone will make a better kit of it, but the subject matter is so old that I doubt it.

Does anyone remember Seaquest DSV? (Monogram) The sub kit was just an abortion!

Still have one, partially built, in my stash. It's been that way for the better part of a decade now. Hard to muster up the desire to finish such a mediocre kit.

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: United Kingdom
Posted by cmtaylor on Sunday, December 6, 2009 4:25 PM
 russianfist wrote:

I'm not much of a Sci Fi builder but I will say that I have been really disapointed with many kits offered in the Sci Fi genre.

Space 1999 Eagle: offered by Monagram (I think). Just a sad kit looking like the mold was cut in 3 days and the worst decals ever. This kit almost ruined my love for the TV series



The Eagle was tooled by Fundimensions and initially released in the UK by Airfix. Subsequent releases were under the AMT/Ertl Label
A VERY disappointing kit of an iconic vehicle

The Hawk, on the other hand, was actually a very good replica of the 9" filming miniature, even if the colour scheme was totally different from that on screen - of course, if you want REAL accuracy, you have to build your own:

http://www.century21models.talktalk.net/Hawk.htm
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here; this is the WAR ROOM!
  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Philadelphia PA
Posted by smeagol the vile on Saturday, December 5, 2009 12:29 PM
well the bandai gundam kits from the 80s wernt bad at all, I have built some of their originals (from the 70s I think) and while being really REALLY vintage there not that bad.  Bandai's molds have always been extremly clean and percisly cut.

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Oregon, Rain country U.S.A.
Posted by russianfist on Saturday, December 5, 2009 11:24 AM

I'm not much of a Sci Fi builder but I will say that I have been really disapointed with many kits offered in the Sci Fi genre.

Space 1999 Eagle: offered by Monagram (I think). Just a sad kit looking like the mold was cut in 3 days and the worst decals ever. This kit almost ruined my love for the TV series

Bandai, any kit from the 80's (take your pick).

Does anyone remember Seaquest DSV? (Monogram) The sub kit was just an abortion!

You got a telegram from headquarters today. Headquarters--what is it? Well, it's a big building where generals meet, but that's not important right now. [ img] f_armorsecretm_ac7eb73[/ img]
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Louisville, KY.
Posted by Cosmic J on Thursday, November 5, 2009 10:05 PM
Heh! Yeah, a few years ago, FSM had an article on building the Dropship - the author had to modify /scratchbuild most of the rear landing gear, because the kit parts were way too short to hold up the rear of the ship.
  • Member since
    May 2009
  • From: Hobart, Tasmania
Posted by Konigwolf13 on Thursday, November 5, 2009 9:55 PM

I never had any issues with the original star trek ships other than painting by hand was pure stupidity Banged Head [banghead]. My flatmate at the time also had no real issues with DS-9 other than the rebuild after our other flatmate landed on it Big Smile [:D]. I would have to nominate the Aliens dropship, as worst I ever built just for its clasic fail. Average detail all round, designed to be built with ramp down then theres this huge chunk of plastic where its bay. Sure didnt expect a detailed apc bay or anything but ramp down leads to plastic wall, fail IMO

 Andrew 

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Wisconsin
Posted by Panzerman on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 12:04 PM

I don't dabble in Sci-fi but when I saw the vehicles from Aliens as kits, I had to get them.

The APC is just plain bad!

Bad detailing

Bad fit.

 The dropship.....

Missing/poor details

Nice decals

  • Member since
    August 2008
  • From: Tuscaloosa, AL
Posted by wingform84 on Tuesday, November 3, 2009 10:36 AM

My main ongoing complaint is the pylons to the nacelles are too thin and floppy.  Both on the old Enterprise cutaway and the just normal Enterprise... you have these super long engines and a tiny strut thats like MAYBE an inch wide trying to hold it up and they just end up being wobbly >.>; 

Also most of the instructions are bad.. really bad.. with really bad painting instructions ugh.   And a lot of times the decals are just beyond hope.

If you have a deviantart account, come join my model building club! http://model-buildersanon.deviantart.com/
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: michigan
Posted by Jafo on Sunday, November 1, 2009 9:08 PM

deep space nine kit itself. nothing fit at all, nothing

 

Rap is to music as Etch-A-Sketch is to art.
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Louisville, KY.
Posted by Cosmic J on Sunday, November 1, 2009 2:42 AM
 Sian wrote:

MPC Star Wars AT-ST. inaccurate, huge seams, terrible fit. 

 

Oh yeah. I had that one. After basic assembly I just gave up on it and used it to test paint colors.

I think I remember someone around here scratchbuilt an awesome one...

  • Member since
    January 2008
Posted by raser13 on Sunday, November 1, 2009 12:41 AM
out of the amt series has got to be the enterprise-a. all of those aztecky panel lines all over,need i say more. not to mention how weak the plastic was where the pylons meet the engineering hull. i don't think that i have ever gotten one of the pylons to stay on without drilling holes and using alignment pins. the nacelle details are so bad you might as well scratch them. the b-c decks are trash as well. and the deflector dish, impulse crystal and nacelle grills are molded out of the same opaque plastic as the rest of the ship which makes lighting almost not worth it. and all of this is without really picking nits like the fact that all of the docking ports are way off in size.

although it does make a decent kit for bashing the snot out of.
I love it when a plan comes together!
  • Member since
    June 2004
Posted by Pat Amaral on Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:50 AM
I've seen a majority of the kits mentioned in this thread so far and none of them come close to the pile of crap that was the AMT/ERTL Death Star. I never believed that anyone could screw up a ball, but they did it. It's a kit with no saving graces whatsoever. It doesn't even make good fodder for bashing into something else. At least you can do that with many of the other kits out there.
Pat A.
  • Member since
    February 2009
Posted by Sian on Sunday, October 18, 2009 3:05 AM
 upnorth wrote:

Anyway, any GW styrene kit I've ever tried has been horrifically overpriced for what you get in it. You get basic shapes with little detail and poor fit.

I include them because, for the price, there should be a sprue or two of customizing parts included to make the kits into respectable display models OOB if you please. Not just low detail RPG pieces.

 I agree totally.

Granted these have gotten better in recent years, I think it can be attributed to GW's inexperience with styrene. Anyway, the bad fit on the old Landspeeders is legendary. I hear their new one is much better though.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Third rock from the sun.
Posted by Woody on Sunday, October 18, 2009 2:40 AM
That bloated Nautilus from the made for TV show was a bit of a turd.

" I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way." --John Paul Jones
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Canada / Czech Republic
Posted by upnorth on Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:46 AM

I don't dabble too much in Sci-Fi modeling but I'll agree that the AMT Star Trek kits were pretty dire.

I think a lot of it had to do with AMT's styrene. I always tried to avoid their kits because of that, their styrene always seemed softer and melted too much when you put the cement to it. Not to mention the seam and detail misalignment issues that plagued most of the their Star Trek line of kits.

Their TNG Romulan Warbird was nasty and had quite a questionable parts breakdown.

What really bothered me was their Cardassian Galor class model from their DS9 kit series. Nothing worked on that kit! panel lines on the top and bottom halves were so misaligned that it looked like two different people were given two different diagrams to do each half. The whole kit felt like it was some sort of afterthought to the rest of the series.

It really was a shame because it was my favorite of the ship designs from the DS9 series and when I had it completed and I compered it to pictures and images of the ship  on TV,the model looked dimensionally and proportionately quite off in several respects.

Moving beyond Star Trek; does anyone remember the short lived "SeaQuest DSV" series from the early 90s? It ran for three seasons but only the first season was worth anything.

Monogram had the license to make kits for the series.

Their SeaQuest submarine kit itself was pretty simplistic, but not bad.

However, there was a utility type submarine vehicle from the series (I don't remember it's exact name, but it was pretty much an underwater pick up truck) that they made a kit of that was god awful in every way.

It had sink marks on many key parts that were in such places on the parts that scratch building replacements was about all you could do. The vehicle had a mesh enclosed cargo box that Monogram supplied as four clear pieces with the mesh patterned engraved on it. Try masking and painting those parts and then getting them together without fogging the clear styrene. I gave up on that one!

I'd also include any Games Workshop styrene kit I've ever built. I know some will argue and say RPG kits aren't Sci-fi, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Anyway, any GW styrene kit I've ever tried has been horrifically overpriced for what you get in it. You get basic shapes with little detail and poor fit.

I include them because, for the price, there should be a sprue or two of customizing parts included to make the kits into respectable display models OOB if you please. Not just low detail RPG pieces.

 

 

  • Member since
    February 2009
Posted by Sian on Sunday, October 11, 2009 2:54 AM

I see your gundam and raise you a

 

 

Tetsujin 28.

  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Philadelphia PA
Posted by smeagol the vile on Sunday, October 11, 2009 1:41 AM

just because it existed doesnt mean it isnt sci-fi

and I will prove it with one picture

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Louisville, KY.
Posted by Cosmic J on Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:53 AM

Now that's not fair. You're going to malign a whole class of model builders just because I made one slightly snarky comment?

 

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Friday, October 9, 2009 10:04 PM

 Cosmic J wrote:
Yes, we heard.

I always regret whenever I enter into this sci-fi forum.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Louisville, KY.
Posted by Cosmic J on Friday, October 9, 2009 11:47 AM
Yes, we heard.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Friday, October 9, 2009 10:20 AM
 Cosmic J wrote:

 smeagol the vile wrote:
nah, ghost rider counts... but its technichly is fantasy, not scifiBig Smile [:D]

Dang it! Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]

Okay, how about this one: The old Airfix 2001 Orion III Pan-Am shuttle. Poor fit, completely inaccurate, and way too expensive for what you get.

 

 

Ghost Rider counts, whether you consider it sci-fi or fantasy. But calling a kit of an actual vehicle that exists a sci-fi kit is rather strange. Anigrand does a neat line of the experimental US flying machines of the 50s and 60s, including the AirGeep. Those aren't sci-fi because they existed.

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Portland, Oregon
Posted by fantacmet on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 9:20 PM

AMT Enterprise D.  Fit is HORRID, and there is a pebbly surface texture.  Not to mention the ejector pin parks I guess you would call them because they are never in alignment with the rest of the lines.  Speaking of the detail lines they are kid of soft and squigly.  HUGE gaps in VERY bad spots.

AMT Romulan Warbird, fit issues extreme.  Seams in bad spots.

Original X-Wing kit, where would I start. 

If I can think of any others I'll mention them later.

    

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.