In the sixties Aurora released a wealth of figure kits which were characterized by magnificent sculpts. For example:
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f24/RedKing71/My%20Collection/AuroraPhantom1.jpg)
The above by Redking.
(http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn243/DwaynePinkney/Aurora%20Mummy%20Completed%201_zpsqs7hp3t4.jpg)
The above by StyreneDude.
Then in 1971 as part of the Monster Scenes line Aurora released a simply abominable Vampirella sculpt:
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c346/JimBertges/100_2769_zpshkoiihrm.jpg)
The above by Jim Bertges.
Let's see, a hairstyle that resembles that of Alfalfa of the Little Rascals, teeth with an Alfred E. Neuman type gap, thick toneless arms, breasts that look like bolt-ons fifteen years before these became omnipresent, and thighs and hips like a horse. Even the bat in the Aurora sculpt looks like a hamster wearing fake rubber wings. Just very crude overall.
The Vampirella sculpt actually looks like some buffoon copied Frank Frazetta's cover art for Vampirella 1 which was actually Frazetta's most miserable effort for Warren:
(http://static8.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/1/15776/2591557-vampirella1a.jpg)
Although perhaps Frazetta's cover can be defended as a surrealistic representational piece.
Anyway what happened? Who was the butcher at Aurora who did the sculpt? Did the regular sculptor's secretary fill in for him on the Vampirella while he was out to lunch or something?
Does anyone know? Because I still think the schmuck should be tracked down and jailed for his "effort".
???
You are going to find yourself in the minority in bashing The Monster Scenes kits. Yes, it's true. They weren't nearly as nice or refined as the first Aurora Monsters...I will give you that. But with proper paints the kits shine. Even Vampi. They have a strong following, Hep.
(http://www.tylisaari.com/models/gallery/ms/gallery/ms-rgvamp2.JPG)
(http://www.tylisaari.com/models/gallery/ms/gallery/ms-rgvamp1.JPG)
Wow, I absolutely love this Mummy by StyreneDude!
(http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn243/DwaynePinkney/Aurora%20Mummy%20Completed%201_zpsqs7hp3t4.jpg)
Yeah not a big fan of that kit at all. Looks ugly even with a good paint job it still looks off.
Guys, you do realize that if we wanted to we could make a thread bashing nearly every Vintage Monster toy as being off...right? Aurora's Wolfman is a perfect example. He was never shirtless in any films, he never wore Ollie Reed's get up from Curse of the Werewolf, His feet were never flat in the film, etc,etc,etc. Doesn't stop me from loving the kit. Die Hard Monster Scenes fans feel the same way about these kits.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 17, 2016, 04:04:54 PMAurora's Wolfman is a perfect example. He was never shirtless in any films, he never wore Ollie Reed's get up from Curse of the Werewolf, His feet were never flat in the film, etc,etc,etc.
All beside the point. Who says Wolf Man has to look like some movie star? James Bama drew him as he saw him that night and the box art is beyond cool. And the sculpt wasn't too bad either although I guess Wolf Man didn't hold still long enough for the sculptor to get his ears right.
:-\
But how did whoever sculpted the Aurora kit make a lithesome beauty like Vampirella look so crude and awkward?
(http://www.vampilore.co.uk/pix/art/adams/adams001.jpg)
???
Well, he clearly didn't follow the beautiful cover or sketch, but its pretty close to the artwork done for the box.
(http://www.entertainmentearth.com/images/AUTOIMAGES/MM638lg.jpg)
Does the Vampi kit look like she's commonly been depicted in artwork? Not really.
Does it look like a pretty realistic version of an naturally voluptuous woman with some meat on her vs a supermodel stick figure with overinflated breasts? Yep, it does! And that ain't a bad thing, as far as it goes.
Wow, that's an absolutely lovely paint job on Vampi in post two.
How come the right arm is straight on one kit and bent on the other? Did the kit come with 2 right arms?
2 sets of arms. Inter change type.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 17, 2016, 04:04:54 PM
Guys, you do realize that if we wanted to we could make a thread bashing nearly every Vintage Monster toy as being off...right? Aurora's Wolfman is a perfect example. He was never shirtless in any films, he never wore Ollie Reed's get up from Curse of the Werewolf, His feet were never flat in the film, etc,etc,etc. Doesn't stop me from loving the kit. Die Hard Monster Scenes fans feel the same way about these kits.
I'm not a big fan as I stated of the Vampirella kit but I still do live the vintage kits because of the time they were made in. I let accuracy go because they are just fun. Not trying to bash anything in all honesty but Vampirella isn't my favorite.
She isnt mine either. Aside from the MS kit, I have nothing of the character. MS kits were such a bizarre amalgamation of Universal Monsters, Original idea, and Warren publishing it would be a licensing nightmare today. They were truly 70's mod fun.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 18, 2016, 02:16:46 PMThey were truly 70's mod fun.
Yeah, but Snap-Together kits were big in the seventies and I think one of the reasons why the Vampirella sculpt was so crude was so the parts could easily snap together.
:(
Meanwhile I just thought the whole Snap-Together concept was dumbing down model building. I still refuse to admit any Snap-Together kits into my model collection.
>:(
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 18, 2016, 02:16:46 PM
She isnt mine either. Aside from the MS kit, I have nothing of the character. MS kits were such a bizarre amalgamation of Universal Monsters, Original idea, and Warren publishing it would be a licensing nightmare today. They were truly 70's mod fun.
The Monster Scenes kits do have a terrific charm. They look like they're
trying to be indicative of their time. I would have loved to have them as a kid!
Quote from: Hepcat on November 18, 2016, 03:51:59 PM
Yeah, but Snap-Together kits were big in the seventies and I think one of the reasons why the Vampirella sculpt was so crude was so the parts could easily snap together.
:(
Meanwhile I just thought the whole Snap-Together concept was dumbing down model building. I still refuse to admit any Snap-Together kits into my model collection.
>:(
I am not particularly fond of snap tgether models either. I think its possible that those were the beginnings of the nanny state complex that exists now. "Hey...kids can't use model glue. Its toxic and they can get high. Let's make some regulaions and switch models to no glue required." Then the slippery slope began..... :o
I hated the snap together kits too! I remember my local model store (which stocked mainly military kits/model railways etc) brought in a load of StarWars 'snap together' kits. I didn't get it. It defeated the purpose of modelling, and I actually remember thinking "what next, a snap-together model that's already painted?"
I never built one, I always pictured them as a toy that had been pulled to pieces by an obnoxious child.
Quote from: Gory Glenn on November 17, 2016, 01:10:41 PM
Wow, I absolutely love this Mummy by StyreneDude!
(http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn243/DwaynePinkney/Aurora%20Mummy%20Completed%201_zpsqs7hp3t4.jpg)
Thanks Gory Glenn! Wait til you see what's coming...I've been painting for months now.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 17, 2016, 05:48:34 PM
Well, he clearly didn't follow the beautiful cover or sketch, but its pretty close to the artwork done for the box.
No, not close at all. It's like online dating. There's the profile photo. And then you meet the real thing.
Bash away folks. ::) ::) Buh bye.
Anton, your paint up is magnificent. ;D
thm
You have to remember these were designed to be toys first. They were made for and marketed to 12 and-under boys who could make an interactive diorama. Same concept with the later Prehistoric Scenes series. In fact, at one point there were characters on the production list who were meant to time travel between the two sets. One was the Hero and another was a scaled-up King Kong which would be big enough to take on the Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Snap-together kits with interchangeable parts severely limits the sculptor's ability to make a realistic figure. That said, there are some very nice and customized versions of Vampirella out there. This one certainly comes to mind:
http://www.monsterscenes.net/builders_lair.htm (http://www.monsterscenes.net/builders_lair.htm)
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 28, 2016, 08:09:47 AMBash away folks. ::) ::) Buh bye.
I don't understand why you seem miffed about some other people disliking the sculpt. Not everybody is going to like every sculpt or monster piece and discussing our likes, dislikes and preferences is what we do on this forum.
???
The thread is dedicated to bashing the sculpt. Which I am not interested in doing. It's titled "That awful Vampirella sculpt" . I thought about avoiding it altogether. Which, in hindsight, perhaps I should have, as its obviously not for me. The thread isn't exactly dedicated to the admiring of someone's work, but the bashing of it based on personal preference.
The sculpt is just fine for the scale, particularly when Aurora instructed the sculptor NOT to make the sculpt "overly seductive", and placed restrictions on him. This is a matter of record, not speculation Thus, you got short legs, and a caricature sculpt. Yet the controversy still ensued because of a sink hole in her groin area. One that resembled an anatomically correct female in the minds of the overly protective house wives of the era.
The sculptor is Bill Lemon. Yup. Bill lemon. Who was great. You may have heard of him. He sculpted all of the original Aurora's from the 1960's(With the exception of the Bride and Witch and/or Forgotten Prisoner, which were by Russ Meyer) that you love so much, and defend vehemently. Primarily because they were released in an era when you were young, and they made an impression on you. So you defend them, warts and all.
Lemon was also involved to some degree (but it escapes me) with the Monster of the Movies. The Aurora Monsters of the Movies Wolfman kit will forever be my favorite vintage Wolfman piece. Why? I was 5 when it was released, and the small base with tree was like a forest to my little hands. He had a shirt on also,lol. It was as accurate a representation I had seen in my years.
The Monster Scenes kits are cool. If you don't like them: that's fine. If I started a thread titled "That awful Phantom of the Opera sculpt "....would you get a bit "miffed"? Maybe even withdraw from the thread? I submit it is a distinct possibility.
To bash Lemon's sculpt isn't a happy time imho. It's like the fellas that bashed Ditko when he was no longer in his "prime" and drawing Rom Space Knight, or dissing Harryhausen's Dark Horse Kong model because he wasn't in his prime when he did it. Which I have heard countless fans do.
I think its rude.
We come here to share common interests....but as of late its been highly negatively opinionated folks ripping others's favorite collectibles or films to shreds. If I want someone to mock or ridicule my hobbies or interests I will just invite people who don't get it to my house and show them my stuff. I am not looking to do it here.
This is why traffic is down at the site lately imho.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 29, 2016, 03:11:32 PMThe sculptor is Bill Lemon. Yup. Bill lemon. Who was great. You may have heard of him. He sculpted all of the original Aurora's from the 1960's (With the exception of the Bride and Witch and/or Forgotten Prisoner... ) that you love so much, and defend vehemently. Primarily because they were released in an era when you were young, and they made an impression on you. So you defend them, warts and all.
But that's just it! I/we all expect things, including Bill Lemon's Aurora sculpts, to get better and better over time. And I think the Vampirella sculpt suffered badly in comparison with his previous sculpts. And I really would have loved to see an Aurora Vampirella model of the same quality as the earlier kits. I was very disappointed when I saw that the Aurora Vampirella kit wasn't in the same league as the earlier kits.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 29, 2016, 03:11:32 PMIf I started a thread titled "That awful Phantom of the Opera sculpt "....would you get a bit "miffed"? Maybe even withdraw from the thread? I submit it is a distinct possibility.
No! I would most assuredly not be miffed. I'd actually be intrigued as to why another UMA member didn't like a model I admired. I might argue with his rationale, but overall I'd find the discussion interesting. So I wouldn't be miffed.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 29, 2016, 03:11:32 PMThe Monster Scenes kits are cool. If you don't like them: that's fine.
To bash Lemon's sculpt isn't a happy time imho.
I think its rude.
But you're contradicting yourself! You clearly don't think it's fine to express the opinion that this particular sculpt is lousy if you think it's "rude". Yet it is fine to say the sculpt is lousy because such monster memorabilia is our subject matter on this board and there are going to be differences of opinion regarding aesthetics on any board. In fact there must be differences of opinion or you have a boring board. And any opinions are fine here so long as they don't constitute a personal attack on any other poster.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 29, 2016, 03:11:32 PMThe thread is dedicated to bashing the sculpt.
The thread isn't exactly dedicated to the admiring of someone's work, but the bashing of it based on personal preference.
Like I say, it's all about personal preferences on this board. In no way are these out of line even if they're negative.
cl:)
They should have used the bat as a bikini top for Vampirella. :D
thm
Quote from: djmadden99 on November 28, 2016, 01:06:57 PM
You have to remember these were designed to be toys first. They were made for and marketed to 12 and-under boys who could make an interactive diorama. Same concept with the later Prehistoric Scenes series.
Which was, & is their appeal & nostalgia factor.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 29, 2016, 03:11:32 PMWe come here to share common interests....but as of late its been highly negatively opinionated folks ripping others's favorite collectibles or films to shreds. If I want someone to mock or ridicule my hobbies or interests I will just invite people who don't get it to my house and show them my stuff. I am not looking to do it here.
This is why traffic is down at the site lately imho.
I disagree. Traffic is down on this board for two reasons.
1. Traffic is way down on the vast majority if not all discussion forums. I don't understand it but mass market social media sites such as Facebook, Youtube and Twitter appear to have drawn the traffic away from subject specific discussion forums.
2. The administrators of this board opted for a smaller less busy board (perhaps because the management of such a board would be less time intensive?) and truncated the board accordingly in the spring of 2014. The loss of content was painful to more than a few members and many previously active posters have found this board less interesting/appealing after the change and have reduced their activity level dramatically.
:-\
Quote from: LundyAfterMidnight on November 30, 2016, 01:13:02 AMQuote from: djmadden99 on November 28, 2016, 01:06:57 PMYou have to remember these were designed to be toys first. They were made for and marketed to 12 and-under boys who could make an interactive diorama. Same concept with the later Prehistoric Scenes series.
Which was, & is their appeal & nostalgia factor.
I can understand that. But without the nostalgia factor I just see a face like Alfalfa's and a squat body resembling a fireplug.
:-\
I have to join the group who thinks Vampirella looks terrible. Honestly I'd have never guessed it was a Bill Lemon sculpt. His other work is far superior, but hey, they can't all be masterpieces.
Just like any band...every song can't be a number one.
I think a major problem in the first place is that y'know, most kids in the day were gonna get their models together kind of messily painted. And that looks okay for ugly monsters but when you want attractive monsters the poor paint quality shows much more
StyreneDude's MUMMY is one of the best finishes I've seen on that kit. Can't wait to see more from him (as promised on a previous page).
I've always wondered if Aurora was trying to somewhat downplay Vampi's erotic qualities. (But then again, maybe I'm generously overthinking things on their behalf.) There were few female horror kits back then (Aurora's Bride of Frankenstein being the most notable exception). Notice, in the Monster Scenes comic, she is not the heroic character of the Warren magazine, but an evil camp vamp.
Sadly, not all sculpts from Aurora were top-notch. Always thought the Hunchback and Witch could have been a bit better. (Speaking of the witch, did anyone ever wonder why she was wearing sandals? Not really Puritan-era footwear.)
Quote from: BijouBob8mm on March 02, 2017, 07:02:53 PM
StyreneDude's MUMMY is one of the best finishes I've seen on that kit. Can't wait to see more from him (as promised on a previous page).
I've always wondered if Aurora was trying to somewhat downplay Vampi's erotic qualities. (But then again, maybe I'm generously overthinking things on their behalf.) There were few female horror kits back then (Aurora's Bride of Frankenstein being the most notable exception). Notice, in the Monster Scenes comic, she is not the heroic character of the Warren magazine, but an evil camp vamp.
Sadly, not all sculpts from Aurora were top-notch. Always thought the Hunchback and Witch could have been a bit better. (Speaking of the witch, did anyone ever wonder why she was wearing sandals? Not really Puritan-era footwear.)
well the "Salem" title wasn't always with her
so maybe she's not meant to be a Salem Witch (I live near Salem by the way, funny thing is that the place that plays up the witch and monster theme isn't actually the part of Salem where the trials happened, the real place it happened changed it's name)
also, I don't see anything wrong with the Hunchback model, I think he just isn't meant to resemble any particular movie
I knew the Witch wasn't always labeled as a Salem Witch...I just don't think sandals seem appropriate for such a character, no matter which side of the pond the old girl was on. As for the Hunchback...even as a kid I just thought the head wasn't up to the usual Aurora quality. But that's just one man's opinion. I see resin replacement heads are available, so you could go with Lon or another. The late Tom Triman (animator, writer, and former member of the UMA) did a fantastic makeover with putty on his Hunchback, really giving it the Chaney look. Will have to dig through some of the photos he'd sent me over the years and see if I can find shots of that build-up to share here. He was great at taking those kits to another level.
I'm thinking either here, or maybe at the Classic Horror Film Board, someone posted a great looking build of the Vampirella kit...probably one of the best jobs on it I've seen. Don't know if it was just their paint job, or if they'd reworked the figure. It certainly made that kit look better than it was.
Keep intending to share this, only to get sidetracked and forget. If you're not already familiar with this fantastic book about the history of Aurora's Monster Scenes kits, this is a must-have volume for any monster or model library! The story-behind-the-story of how the kits came about, only to be wiped out, and how they paved the way for the Prehistoric Scenes and Monsters of the Movies kits that came after them.
https://www.amazon.com/Aurora-Monster-Scenes-Controversial-Generation/dp/0692202870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488574198&sr=1-1 (https://www.amazon.com/Aurora-Monster-Scenes-Controversial-Generation/dp/0692202870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488574198&sr=1-1)
I think the same folks have a Prehistoric Scenes volume currently in the works.
I really should get that book one day
Quote from: BijouBob8mm on March 03, 2017, 03:53:48 PM
Keep intending to share this, only to get sidetracked and forget. If you're not already familiar with this fantastic book about the history of Aurora's Monster Scenes kits, this is a must-have volume for any monster or model library! The story-behind-the-story of how the kits came about, only to be wiped out, and how they paved the way for the Prehistoric Scenes and Monsters of the Movies kits that came after them.
https://www.amazon.com/Aurora-Monster-Scenes-Controversial-Generation/dp/0692202870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488574198&sr=1-1 (https://www.amazon.com/Aurora-Monster-Scenes-Controversial-Generation/dp/0692202870/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488574198&sr=1-1)
I think the same folks have a Prehistoric Scenes volume currently in the works.
I have a few monster models but I'm not even close to most of you guys who specialize in them. That said I had to have the book and I recommend it highly. It's really a must-have for any monster fan, especially if you had the Monster Scenes kits as a kid.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61dJuHjL8BL.jpg)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71XkX5z5r1L.jpg)
Here's a link to bypass Amazon: http://www.monsterscenes.net/ms_book.htm (http://www.monsterscenes.net/ms_book.htm)
I did a review of Dennis' Aurora book for Scary Monsters Magazine back when it first came out. Hoping to get a heads-up from him about the Prehistoric Scenes volume when it's ready to roll.
do have this book though
(http://www.louisvillehalloween.com/wp-content/gallery/monster-mash/monstermash.jpg)