Star Trek Hot Wheels Coming In May |
jump to navigation

Star Trek Hot Wheels Coming In May January 19, 2009

by John Tenuto , Filed under: Toys , trackback

The 2009 Star Trek toy news keeps on coming, with yet another venerable line from Mattel getting into the game. This May, Mattel will offer fans and collectors the first ever Hot Wheels brand Star Trek ships, starting with some Star Trek classics. TrekMovie provides the details and preorder information below.


Classic Ships Meet A Classic Toy Line
To celebrate the return of Star Trek to the big time in 2009, Mattel’s Hot Wheels line is going retro with four 1:50 scale die-cast model ships. The line will feature four of Trek’s most iconic ships.

These die-cast metal ships are 1:50 scale (around 4" long) and according to Mattel, will be "loaded with the kind of detail that will drive Star Trek collectors and Trekkies absolutely wild with excitement." No photos are available yet, but maybe we will see some coming out of Toy Fair in New York next month.

The new Star Trek die-cast Hot Wheels arrive in May. The set of four is available for pre-order at Entertainment Earth for $54.99.

Mattel, Hot Wheels and Trek
Mattel’s Hot Wheels line is almost as venerable as Star Trek itself, starting in 1968 and with a legion of fans of its own, and talk now of a major motion picture based on the toy line. What is interesting, and exciting, is that Mattel has been doing a wonderful job of pairing Star Trek to its most popular lines. Fans are already familiar with Mattel’s "Barbie" branded 12" figures for the 2009 Star Trek feature film. Those figures are winning praise for their detailing and likenesses. Here, the pairing of Hot Wheels and Star Trek is a great idea because like Barbie, there is more than one group of collectors and fans for the item. Hot Wheels has a loyal collecting base and these toys may help to introduce some to the coolness of Trek. Vice versa, Star Trek collectors may find an interest in other Hot Wheel items. It also bodes well that the world’s best selling toy company, Mattel, has such confidence in Star Trek that it is getting this kind of treatment. While many collectors were disappointed with the first reveal of Playmate items, this news is good salve.

Here is a full list (with pre-order links) of the otheritems Mattel has planned for Star Trek in 2009:

Not the first die-cast Trek
Even though these are the first Hot Wheels Star Trek items, Trek has a long history of die-cast metal toys starting with Dinky in the 70s and continuing on with companies such as Corgi, ERTL, and Galoob. The last last licensee for die-cast was Corgi, who haven’t released a Trek die-cast for over two years.

Early die-cast Trek toy from 1976


1. Spoctor McKirk - January 19, 2009

Hot Wheels were always my favourite toy as a kid. Plus, my mom worked for Mattel so I had everything.

2. Era Less - January 19, 2009

Looking very retro, cant wait for this movie to come out in May.

3. Ed - January 19, 2009

Nice, can’t wait.

4. kirk2009 - January 19, 2009

HEY EVERYONE—LOOK AT THAT DIE CAST ENTERPRISE TOY FROM 1976! I bet thats where JJ got the idea to put the new Enterprise’s registry number at the very front of the saucer module!

5. Math ain't that hard - January 19, 2009

It is impossible that any of these will be 1/50 scale

6. That One Guy - January 19, 2009

Probably 1/50 the size of the original studio model, is what I’m guessing. These are more like 1/1000 if anything.

7. The Gorn Identity - January 19, 2009

I used to have one of those die-cast “Dinky” Enterprise toys when I was a little kid!!!

8. montreal paul - January 19, 2009

very cool! I HAVE that die cast Enterprise from 1976. The “bridge” are would turn so it could shoot out these discs. And there is a compartment on the underside that opens up and a small plastic space shuttle is in there. I don’t have the discs or the shuttle anymore.. I was 9 when I had it back in 76! But the Enterprise is still in great shape!

9. ety3 - January 19, 2009

Anyone else think we were getting young Kirk’s Corvette when you saw the headline?

10. Katarian Eggs - January 19, 2009

& what of Johnny Lightning?

11. Sam Belil - January 19, 2009

I actually has the “CORGI TOYS” version back when I was a kid!
Oh yes #9 I also thought we’d be seeing the “Kirk Corvette”.
Thank G-d, we’re not — unless Chevrolet decided to come out with a real “commerotive Kirk Corvette!

12. 'Beach - January 19, 2009

Me, too. It fired discs out of a slot in the front edge of the saucer.

13. 'Beach - January 19, 2009

Ooops. Didn’t see Post #8 when I said that…

14. Montel - January 19, 2009

A 4″ long 1701A would be 1:3000 scale, a 4″ long 1701D would 1:6200, the BoP would be 1:1080… and a 1:50 scale 1701A would be 20 feet long, and 1701D would be almost 42 feet long! While I’d love to see ones that size, where would I put it?

15. SPB - January 19, 2009


I’ve been waiting for Johnny Lightning versions of the Klingon Bird of Prey for, what, YEARS now?

Thank you, Hot Wheels! Can’t wait to put that sucker on my desk at work!

16. Katarian Eggs - January 19, 2009

It’ll be hard to top Johnny Lightning’s current line, although it has been getting pretty stagnent; a lot of repaints of the same moulds over & over again. I’m really glad to hear that we’re getting a Bird of Prey, evryone’s favorite Klingon ship.
Here’s hoping they do an extensive line with a lot of variation in ship design, I’d love to see Defiant & some Dominion ships as well as more Starfleet classes respresented.
The Enterprise era Klingon ships are cool, too! A Raptor class would be nice!

17. Weerd1 - January 19, 2009

Hopefully, Hot Wheels will get these in regular stores with far more efficiency than Johnny Lightning did. Though not die-cast, it’d be great to get better availability of the Furuta Trek models in the States as well. They’re nicely done.

18. The Gorn Identity - January 19, 2009

16. Katarian Eggs stated: I’m really glad to hear that we’re getting a Bird of Prey, evryone’s favorite Klingon ship.


I must be in the minority because the D-7/K’tinga battlecruiser is my favorite Klingon ship.

19. John Tenuto - January 19, 2009

#5 and #14

Before you criticize, why not be sure you check the facts?

These are 1:50 scale, as the Johnny Lightning versions are 1:64 scale in the language of these toys.

20. Closettrekker - January 19, 2009

#18—If that’s a minority opinion, then count me in as well.

I hated the Klingon “Bird Of Prey”. Painting ships like “giant birds of prey” was a Romulan practice, as established in “Balance Of Terror”.

Give me the battlecruisers from TOS/TMP anyday!

21. Joe Cocolo - January 19, 2009

The Excelsior or the Enterprise-B would be kick-ass! Since I’m on a roll, I’d love to see and Enterprise-C. Oh Hell, they oughtta just make a special set with all the Enterprises (not Trek 0’s though, that’s a special case)

22. Joe Cocolo - January 19, 2009

I’d love to see an Excelsior or Enterprise-B.

23. Stringfellow Hawke - January 19, 2009

I loved the Johnny Lightning line, and have most of the set, but goshdarn they’re hard to find!

There was also a pewter series made for FASA’s ST Tactical Combat simulation game of the 80’s, too. Amarillo Design Bureau I believe was the manufacturer’s name.

24. Arvin Nathanael Chandra - January 19, 2009

Wasn’ there like a Micro Machines set of Star Trek ships too? I remember collecting several them years ago.

Now there’s all gone… swallowed by time (and after moving through four different homes).

25. Katarian Eggs - January 19, 2009

Ladies & Gentlemen, as per #18 & #20, I stand corrected.
Apparently The Bird of Prey isn’t as popular as she used to be.

#20 – You’re quite right. However it’s clearly noted in “The Enterprise Incident” that Romulans & Klingons were trading ship design technology during this era. It’s likley that one copied the other & as Romulans are notorious for stealing technological advancements from other cultures rather than developing them themselves, I’m forced to hypothesize that the bird-like shape & paint jobs likely originated with the Klingons.

#18 – D-7 is a nice design, but I like the Raptor class best of all.

26. SPB - January 19, 2009


They started out GREAT, but then fell back on simply reusing the same molds with different paint-jobs or decals. The final straw for me was, rather than finally put out ships like the Klingon Bird of Prey, TMP Klingons cruisers or TMP Vulcan Shuttle, we’d get “cloaked” versions of previous ships or “battle-damaged” ships with little plastic laserbolts attached to them, which made them look BUTT-UGLY.

They got lazy real fast. Time for Hot Wheels to take up the charge and show them how it’s done…

27. CmdrR - January 19, 2009

Excellent! My desk will be too crowded for actual work… but, who cares!

28. Closettrekker - January 19, 2009

#25—” it’s clearly noted in “The Enterprise Incident” that Romulans & Klingons were trading ship design technology during this era.”

Not exactly.

“Intelligence reports Romulans now using Klingon design.”—Spock, “the Enterprise Incident”.

This single line of dialogue seems to be responsible for the notion that there was any ‘mutual exchange’ going on, and quite frankly that “fanon” explanation never really made any sense.

Why would the xenophobic Romulans surrender their most prized technological/tactical advantage (namely, the cloaking device) to a rival empire merely for the rights to utilize a ship design? And even if they had, why would the Klingons paint that ship in a manner which is distinctly Romulan?

In the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, the Chinese frequently copied Soviet military designs without permission or blessing. Given the obvious allegories involving the Klingons/Romulans to Cold War-era Russians/Chinese, it seemed far more likely to me that the Romulans would have simply captured and copied a Klingon design.

In the dvd commentary on TSFS, the production designer notes that the BOP was originally supposed to be a Romulan ship which Kruge had commandeered. That was, at one point, part of the film’s storyline. That was fine, except that—instead, the BOP became a staple of the Klingon fleet going forward. It was a long time before we saw Klingons in any other type of ship.

The whole “mutual exchange” explanation never held water for me.

29. Katarian Eggs - January 19, 2009

#26 SPB


Couldn’t agree more!! The phaser blasts & photons shooting out of the Johnny lightning ships look so cartoonish & lame!!

I don’t mind the battle damaged variants & I kinda like the little plastic fires on some ships. My favorite of their whole line is actually the SFS destructed Enterprise NCC-1701.

But they need to get some new moulds over there!!!

How many times can we repro the same ship?!

The cloaked versions really suck! They look like Wonder Woman’s invisible jet…if it’s invisible, why can I still see the outline of it?

Hopefully, Hot Wheels won’t fall into the same trap!!

30. Ralph F - January 19, 2009

Personally I hate the Bird of Prey. When I first saw it in STIII I thought it was a good design, but more Romulan than Klingon. Since then, it’s been so insanely overused and scale-independent (it’s one size in one film, another in this TNG episode, yet another in that DS9 ep, etc.) that I can’t stand seeing the damn thing anymore.

Give me a D7 any day.

31. Katarian Eggs - January 19, 2009

28. Closettrekker

The Romulans would have been willing to trade their cloaking device for the advantage of faster, more energy efficient ships. In “Balance of Terror” it’s clear that their speed is lesser than the Enterprise & their primary plasma weapon is extremely taxing on the ships power.
The two were allies until the Kitomer massacre, so there’s little risk in sharing the cloak, especially as Romulans could probably see through their own cloaking device.

But you’re right, it’s all fannon-

Bottom line, bird shaped ships are cool & used by both!

32. Rick Sternbach - January 19, 2009

#19 – 1:50 might be a popular scale for diecast vehicles, but it’s -not- accurate to say that a 4″ long 1:50 replica of a Star Trek spacecraft has the proper proportional relationship to the “real” spacecraft. That would imply that the real thing would only be 200″ long. 1:50 is 1:50, regardless of how some marketing person uses the scale to describe a toy product.

33. Vorus - January 19, 2009


I was wondering if anyone was going to say that. I was reading all the posts before I spoke up, just in case someone else mentioned it. And to have it come from the master is even better.

Yeah, 1/50 is clearly wrong. I wonder what the real scale is. A 1/50 scale Enterprise (1701) would be nearly 19 feet long! Which granted, would be an awesome model, but I think that’s a pipe dream.

34. OM - January 19, 2009

…What? A Hot Wheels without the trademarked redstripe wheels? For shame! :-P

35. Closettrekker - January 19, 2009

#31—“Romulans could probably see through their own cloaking device.”

Not according to the Romulan Commander in “The Enterprise Incident”. She was quite clear that even they did not have the technology to detect a vessel such equipped.

“The Romulans would have been willing to trade their cloaking device for the advantage of faster, more energy efficient ships. In “Balance of Terror” it’s clear that their speed is lesser than the Enterprise & their primary plasma weapon is extremely taxing on the ships power.”

Again, they wouldn’t need a trade to accomplish that, just as the Chionese didn’t to copy the MIG-15/MIG-21, etc..

Furthermore, the reason the “Bird Of Prey” in BOT is much slower is the enormous energy spent by the cloaking device and the plasma weapon. That is the trade off for its destructive power. That doesn’t in itself preclude the Romulans from having the capability of building a more energy-efficient ship.

“The two were allies until the Kitomer massacre, so there’s little risk in sharing the cloak…”

I’ll take your word that they were allies (I’m not a huge TNG fan, so my knowledge of that show is limited) until then, but that doesn’t change the fact that Romulans are xenophobic in nature, and therefore unlikely to see the loss of the cloaking device advantage as something which affords little risk (allies or not).

I think it was simply a poor creative choice, continuity-wise.

In any case, my point was that the fanon notion of a mutual exchange treaty was always built upon shaky ground, and something in which I never saw much merit.

Moreover, I never viewed Klingons as the type to do anything in a cloaked scoutship that accomodated a mere dozen warriors. That in itself seems very Romulan. I always pictured Klingons as appearing in huge, bulky battlecrusiers, and preferring to approach troublesome issues with overwhelming force.

36. Katarian Eggs - January 19, 2009

35. Closettrekker

I stand corrected, you’re right about “The Enterprise Incident” line, of course.

This all roots for a limited budget & a poor creative excuse for recycling

But if Klingons only used big bulky cruisers, they’d be wiped out pretty quickly. The BOP serves in the capacity of a fighter plane during fleet conflicts. It’s faster & more manuverable than a larger ship (which makes no sense,cause this is space so mass isn’t a factor).

The Romulan-Klingon allegence is covered in several TNG episodes.

37. montreal paul - January 19, 2009

When I read the totle I never thought about the corvette! But that would be cool.. I’d buy the Hotwheels Jimmy Kirk Corvette for sure.. along with the ships they are putting out. Why not?

38. Fred - January 19, 2009

I just visited the official movie site at

Wow, I haven’t heard anyone around here talking much about it, but it looks cool! Glad I stumbled onto it. I don’t know how I missed it up til now.

39. Jeff Glasson - January 19, 2009

Theses should definitely be cool! Looking forward to seeing how they compare to the Johnny Lightning versions from a few years back.

40. Captain Dunsel - January 19, 2009

#36 “It’s faster & more manuverable than a larger ship (which makes no sense,cause this is space so mass isn’t a factor).”

Since when is mass NOT a factor in changing the direction of an object in motion?

41. John Tenuto - January 19, 2009



The language of toys is not the same argot as the language of models or the language of special effects. The term “1:50″ and the idea of it relating to “4 inches” is proper in the context of talking about this hobby. This is not marketing language, it is a standard in this hobby.

42. Holger - January 19, 2009

Whoooooooosh! I’m gonna get one of those.

36: It’s as Captain Dunsel says. There may be weightlessness in space, but you’re forgetting inert mass, which is defined as resistance against acceleration.

43. Captain Dunsel - January 19, 2009

#33 “A 1/50 scale Enterprise (1701) would be nearly 19 feet long! Which granted, would be an awesome model, but I think that’s a pipe dream.”

Bring it on! I’ll find space for it in my living room…

44. Closettrekker - January 19, 2009

#40 and #42—Forgive my limited knowledge of physics, but I suppose my immediate assumption would be that overall mass is less of a factor in space, as compared to within the Earth’s atmosphere, but its “inert mass” would still be resistant to acceleration, and thus it remains a factor in maneuvering ability. Is that correct?

I normally do not spend much time thinking of such things, since it is really outside of my interests, but I was curious.

45. Katarian Eggs - January 19, 2009

40. Captain Dunsel & 42. Holger

No gravity, no atmospheric resistance. If you apply thrust in any vector, ship moves there. Inert mass not a factor in a vacuum, there is no resistance against acceleration. The ship should theoretically move at an almost constant speed in any direction without need for more than 1 initial thrust, until it hits something.

46. Rat Boy - January 19, 2009

Can you race them in one of those loop tracks?

47. GraniteTrek - January 19, 2009

If they’re 4″ long, they’d have to be 1/500 or so, not 1/50. 1/50th scale on a 400 foot ship would translate to about 6 feet – cool, but not portable!

48. GraniteTrek - January 19, 2009

Erm, 1/50 would be EIGHT feet, not six feet – and still not portable…

49. Rick Sternbach - January 19, 2009

#41 – It only makes sense if you’re talking about toy cars, not toy spaceships. Scaling is math, pure and simple.

50. Rick Sternbach - January 19, 2009

And when you’re talking about toy spacehips, even companies making diecast replicas of the Saturn V/Apollo combinations and the Space Shuttle all use the proper scales.

51. Lexomatic - January 19, 2009

@42, 44, 45:

“Inert mass” is not a term in physics (in any textbook I’ve read). You may be confusing “inertial mass” (resistance to imposed forces, the m in F=ma) and “gravitational mass” (in Gm1m2/r^2), which all real-world experiments have shown to be equivalent, but which SFnal spacedrives can operate on separately. For example, the “space-time driver coils” in an impulse engine (per the ST:TNG TM explanation) reduce the inertial mass of the ship so the “rocket effect” (Newton’s second law) is more effective.

Flight in atmosphere involves the force pairs of thrust/drag and weight/lift, which is why aerodynamic shapes exist. With no drag to fight against, and no need to generate lift, spacecraft need not be aerodynamic, but do need to apply thrust through their center of mass, and be strong enough to avoid crumpling (see: the Principle of Equivalence, whereby acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable (over small distances)). Hence TNG’s “structural integrity field” to augment the metal hull members. This may not apply to Trek warp drives (whoever heard of the nacelles jumping off the ship?) but certainly to the rocket-like impulse drives.

52. Captain Dunsel - January 19, 2009

#45 “…almost constant speed IN ANY DIRECTION without need for more than 1 initial thrust…” (Emphasis added)

Yes – but “maneuverability” – the context of your original observation – implies the ability to ALTER the direction, and once you start doing that, then mass is right back in it.

If you don’t think so, just imagine changing the direction in space of a pet rock, vs. changing the direction of the moon. One is slightly more maneuverable than the other, and all because of MASS.

53. Third Remata'Klan - January 19, 2009

Ooooh. Cool….

54. Anthony Pascale - January 19, 2009

Rick Sternbach and others
we report what these things are called, these are the descriptions provided. Clearly Mattel uses a different system than model makers like AMC. The Johnny Lighting ships were also very small, yet called 1:64…but they clearly were not 1/64th the size of the ‘real’ spaceships. These toys chose to use the terms they use for whatever reason, and we report their descriptions

perhaps you should take up this debate with Mattel, Johnny Lighting and others who use these terms.

John’s article is only describing the Star Trek Hot Wheels coming this year, which I think is pretty cool. These are affordable small die-cast ship toys…do we need to turn this into another Trekkie fire fight?

55. TrekMadeMeWonder - January 19, 2009

28. Closettrekker


56. Enterprise - January 19, 2009

Lol, way to overthink things people.,

57. Captain Dunsel - January 19, 2009

#54 “…do we need to turn this into another Trekkie fire fight?”

Of course – that’s half the FUN!

And I *still* want that 19 foot ship…

58. GraniteTrek - January 19, 2009

I want the 1:50 version – it’d be the biggest, coolest Yard Ornament on the block! ;)

59. Jeyl - January 19, 2009

The only problem I’ve been having with the Johnny Lightning line is that I can’t bloody find them! Target, ToysRus, Walmart, Kaybee (Those that are still around), no one has them and I’ve been to a lot of stores across this country.

At least I see Hot Wheels toys at the cash registers.

60. Tyler J Anderson - January 19, 2009

1/50 would be 20 feet long for the constitution class ship

61. OM - January 19, 2009

“And when you’re talking about toy spacehips, even companies making diecast replicas of the Saturn V/Apollo combinations and the Space Shuttle all use the proper scales.”

…Yeah, but I’d still rather see those red pinstriped wheels on these die-casts. Think how cool it would be to see the TMP enterprise doing a loop-de-loop down a stretch of Hot Wheels track, even if I damn sure wouldn’t shoot one through a Super-Charger :-)

(You’re missed on, Rick. Good to see you’re still out there, tho!)

62. SPB - January 19, 2009


(Not sure where you’re looking at Toys R Us, but the ones around here in Western Massachusetts always seemed to carry them, at least the first few waves. They kept them with the other Hot Wheels and Matchbox cars.

Either that, or see if any local hobby stores carry them. Another one in my area always seemed to have them stocked front-and-center or on their own separate wall. Wouldn’t hurt to see if maybe they could order them for you, too.)

63. Tiberius Kirk - January 19, 2009

Hotwheels should produce the vintage Corvette from the new movie!

Tiberius Kirk

64. Charlie - January 19, 2009

I had the ENTERPRISE & the Klingon ship from Dinky.

Wish I still had them… and the rest of my old Trek toys. =(

65. Andy C - January 20, 2009

I would love to see a Hotwheels Defiant… When Corgi produced the TNG 20th Anniversary Enterprise D in ’07 it said on the packaging that a Defiant, Voyager and other models would be released in ’08 but they never materialised.

The Johnny Lightning models are good, but all they ever seem to do is release new versions of old models (with battle damage or cloaked etc) or re-uses of old moulds e.g. USS Yamato (Galaxy Class so D moulds), TOS Defiant & Exclaibur (1701 moulds), ISS Enterprise NX-01.

66. JP Saylor - January 20, 2009

Well my favorite klingon ship is the Negh-var lol

67. Vorus - January 20, 2009

Soo, if the company really does claim that they are 1/50 scale, what do they think that means? How can they think that 1/50 just equates to 4″? If they want to build a 4″ model, but don’t want to call it by the proper scale, why don’t they just say it’s a 4″ model, instead of listing it at a completely incorrect scale?

68. Holger - January 20, 2009

Yep, the correct term is “inertial mass”, not “inert mass”. I had translated all too literally from my native language.

In Classical Physics, the law governing inertial mass is F=ma, as has been stated. Just think about this law and everything we need about maneuverability is found in there.
In order to change the course of an object in space, you’ll have to accelerate it. If you have a spaceship with a mass of 100 tons, and another one with 200 tons, and you want to give them both the same acceleration, you’ll have to apply twice the force on the 200 ton ship.
Acceleration is increase in velocity per time unit (measured in meter/square seconds). Therefore, the higher the acceleration, the faster your spaceship will obtain the desired velocity.
If maneuverability means the ability to fast changes of direction, as I guess it does, this depends crucially on the mass. The more mass your ship has, the more force you have to apply to change course fast.
Of course you can always compensate for higher mass by applying larger forces to effect course change, thus spending more energy. So, if we wanna have it absolutely precise, maneuverability depends on the ship’s mass and the amount of energy available for course corrections (and on how quickly you can convert that energy in order to exert force.)

Side note: the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass was a big conundrum for Classical Physics, but Classical Physics was eventually superseded by Einsteins Theory of Relativity, and that theory delivers and elegant explanation why inertial and gravitational mass are the same.

End of nerd transmission ;-)

69. John Tenuto - January 20, 2009


The notion of 1:50 or 1:64, despite protestations, is the term that has been used for decades to refer to these smaller toys. If you don’t like the verbage, then complain to the hundreds of thousands of toy collectors over the past 40 years who have utilized these notions. This is not a scale model, it is a toy. In the train hobby, there is a different language for that subculture.

The toy is 1:50 scale. The Johnny Lightnings are 1:64 scale. That’s it. That’s what they are called. They were called this for decades. If you we don’t like it, we should write a letter to every toy company in the world. Its been explained a hundred times in these comments. It probably isn’t going to change no matter what we fans think.

70. OneBuckFilms - January 20, 2009

68 – Great explanation !!!

Starships can cheat this, however, by generating a low-level warp field.

Worked for DS9 ;-)

71. OneBuckFilms - January 20, 2009

54 – But they’re fun to watch ;-)

72. Holger - January 20, 2009

70: Yeah, they can. We saw it in TNG, too. In Deja Q it was suggested by Q to change the universal constant of gravity (!!) in order to save a planet whose moon was spiraling down on it. This is not humanly possible, of course, but then Geordi came up with the idea to wrap the warp field of the Enterprise around the moon to reduce its inertial mass.

73. Vorus - January 20, 2009

@69 I don’t “like” or “dislike” the notion of calling them 1:50 scale when they actually aren’t. I don’t care one way or the other what the company calls them. I’m just asking for an explanation of why they choose to do it that way. The fact that “it has been used for decades” isn’t an explanation. Why have they used a scale descriptor that is so wrong for for long?

74. steve623 - January 20, 2009

Wow, what a touchie crowd.

Rick Sternbach >

75. John Tenuto - January 21, 2009


No doubt Rick Sternbach is a real expert on models and a great resource on Star Trek. I have his signature because I respect his talents. He is the kind of person who can blend technical abilities with artistic abilities and that is very unusual.

I disagree with him here, although it is an issue of language. It doesn’t mean I don’t respect him or consider him an expert.

76. Anthony Thompson - January 21, 2009

Hot Wheels puts out a good quality product. I hope that they put out the TOS Ent. as well because my Diamond Select model is just awful!

77. Montel - January 21, 2009

gee Anthony, I didn’t really see this as a flame fight, just observant fans pointing out an error in what the manufacturer states. No reflection on And if the models look good, I’ll pay Mattel for them, no matter what the label says. But no matter what “industry standard” toy makers use for car models, when words like “scale model” are used, they mean one thing and one thing only – 1/x, where 1 unit is equal to “x” units to make the model smaller. Scale means scale, in modelling, in hobby trains, in architectural drawings. When Lionel uses “H0″ gauge, it means 1:87 scale, when they say “N” gauge, it means 1:160 scale. If Hot Wheels uses 1:50 for their cars, that’s fine. But if they use it for these starship toys, they are using it wrong. That’s not a flame, nor an ad hominem attack. Just a statement of that an error has been made.

I’m sure most of the readers don’t care about this nitpick over a manufacturer’s label, just as there are those who don’t care about whether the Bird of Prey looks Romulan or Klingon, or whether or not young Kirk can drive stickshift. For those of us who do care, and since we as fans are powerless except for in our voices, can’t we express those concerns as long as we do it politely?

78. HWC Chris - January 22, 2009

Mattel is defining this new Star Trek line as 5″ to 7″ ships. A 1:50 scale would be quite large! The author was referencing scale from our first announcement of this line which has since been updated.

We are very excited to launch this new line in time for the movie. And this is just the beginning! As we all know the amount of ships and unique decorations Hot Wheels could come out with is immense.

79. HWC Chris - January 22, 2009

Thank you John for writing this article. Feel free to contact me at Mattel for more info. on this line. We would be happy to get you the first insights on what we have approved so far!

80. Do It - January 23, 2009

Hurry up and ask HWC CHRIS for pics!

81. Star Trek Hot Wheels - Forums - April 12, 2009

[…] The 2009 Star Trek toy news keeps on coming, with yet another venerable line from Mattel getting into the game. This May, Mattel will offer fans and collectors the first ever Hot Wheels brand Star Trek ships, starting with some Star Trek classics. TrekMovie provides the details and preorder information below. Classic Ships Meet A Classic Toy Line To celebrate the return of Star Trek to the big time in 2009, Mattels Hot Wheels line is going retro with four 1:50 scale die-cast model ships. The line will feature four of Treks most iconic ships. USS Enterprise NCC-1701 Refit (TMP era) Klingon Bird of Prey (as seen in Star Trek III) USS Reliant NCC-1864 (Star Trek II) USS Enterprise 1701 D (Next Generation) See here: Star Trek Hot Wheels Coming In May | […]

82. JJ - May 30, 2009

I saw the ships today they’re cool hopefully they’ll come out with a klingon D-7 battle cruiser in the future

83. Bill - July 7, 2009

to posts 36 40 42 44 etc through 68…. really? are we really having a physics dissusion about weather the bop is more manuverable? it isnt real! go with it! thats like having a discussion on why the SW lightsaber erm “stops”. cause george lucas said so. same with Gene and trek.
end rant.

Anyway on the other debate on BOP Rom or Kling i always thought that – yes, it cloaks, yes, it has the wing paint job. but look at the design! it has that neck reminisent of the D7/k’tinga and the wings point down in a very klingon fashion. it could have been a joint effort between the two. also has anyone ever thought about xenophobic or not they could still be captured and forced to divulge secrets? the Roms couldn’t withstand a Mindsifter the way a vulcan could because they dont have the mental training. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.