# The Head(s) of Frankenstein (a question)



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Did Aurora use the original Frank kit head for Frank's Flivver? If not, what's the major diffs between them, and are they comparable, sizewise? 

TIA.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

frank,

My _guess _would be yeah, they sure look the same. It appears that the arms and hands are identical also, with the locator for the right arm having been altered so that it can hang down the side of the Flivver. It would have made life easier for the pattern maker (Larry Ehling, I think) to adapt the existing kit parts to the Flivver version of Frankenstein, rather than sculpt new ones. Plus the similarities between the two kits might have been viewed as increasing continuity?

Mark McG.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Thank you Mark. I ask because many years ago I saw a spare Frank head which was basically identical to the original but cruder in the sculpt...that is, details were fainter and more fuzzy. It was undoubtedly Aurora but just slightly 'off' somehow. Figured it was from a really bad run of the original kit, but now wonder if it's from the hot rod kit (which I've never seen in person or a really tight close-up to tell). Have seen closeups of the Wolfman and Mummy rods...those heads seem considerably diff from the main kits, to my eye anyway, so wasn't sure if same went for Frank.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Good question and answer... I always assumed they were the same, but never compared the two...
Now, here's the real question - is the head the same for Dracula and Dracula's Dragster?


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Frankenstyrene - (by the way, great name) The Aurora Frankenstein head showed up somewhere else as well - as a premium in cereal boxes! When Aurora was owned by Nabisco (circa 1975) small busts of the Universal monsters were put into Sugar Crisps. They were very similar to the classic Aurora monster model heads. You can check them out here:

http://home.comcast.net/~cinorjer/aurora.htm


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Yes, I remember seeing those!!! Also - forgive this maudlin jog down memory lane but you just shook it loose - I clearly recall standing in the bathroom one Saturday morning (cartoons were on) trying to darken the room enough to see the glow of the Creech poster I'd just pulled out of a box of cereal...I was five at most and danged if I see it like it was yesterday. You've probably seen that poster (whole set, too) showing up on ee-bay recently for an UNGODLY amount of dough.

Anyway, the head I saw was halved just like the original - definitely a kit part. Gray plastic, iirc.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Similar question: what scales, roughly, are the UNCLE and James Bond kits in?


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Bond and Oddjob are 1/8 scale; the Man From U.N.C.L.E. kits were a smaller scale - 1/10, 1/12? I don't have any books near the computer.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

ChrisW said:


> Frankenstyrene - (by the way, great name) The Aurora Frankenstein head showed up somewhere else as well - as a premium in cereal boxes! When Aurora was owned by Nabisco (circa 1975) small busts of the Universal monsters were put into Sugar Crisps. They were very similar to the classic Aurora monster model heads. You can check them out here:
> 
> http://home.comcast.net/~cinorjer/aurora.htm


the aurora molds, or remolds of same, were used and reused by tons of companies... for example, the old pennplax creature aquarium figure was defiantly taken from the aurora kit, modified for easier construction.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Mark McGovern said:


> Bond and Oddjob are 1/8 scale; the Man From U.N.C.L.E. kits were a smaller scale - 1/10, 1/12? I don't have any books near the computer.


Dang it. There goes that idea.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

razorwyre1 said:


> the aurora molds, or remolds of same, were used and reused by tons of companies... for example, the old pennplax creature aquarium figure was defiantly taken from the aurora kit, modified for easier construction.


 
I wouldn't be suprised if an Aurora Creature was used as a master and 3-D pantographed down for the Penn-Plax bubbler.

The cover art for the Aurora kits (or copies thereof) turned up all over the place as well. Wallets, album covers, toys and games, etc. used the Bama paintings as the basis for their art...


----------



## Jimmy B (Apr 19, 2000)

ChrisW said:


> Now, here's the real question - is the head the same for Dracula and Dracula's Dragster?


No, The Drac's Dragster Head is from the unreleased 'South Park' Mr. Mackey
kit...Mmmkay?


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

That's "Count Mackey" to you! Mmmmmmkay?


----------



## buzzconroy (Jun 28, 2002)

I just compare the 2 frankenstein heads again from my kits, there is some extra detail on the flivver head by his cheek and mouth, very slight though, I am comparing it form a thin box kit head.The flivver is one of my favorite all time aurora kits.

Buzz


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Ii think I'll post a pic of the two here in the next day or so. I know the hands differ.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Jimmy B said:


> No, The Drac's Dragster Head is from the unreleased 'South Park' Mr. Mackey
> kit...Mmmkay?


:lol: ! Ditto , Madcap!


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

I think the heads could be interchangeable. Will have to "Dig Up" my monsters and find out for sure.

Incidently, this is my first picture of the Frankenstein Flivver to be posted on these boards.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Speaking of Frankenstein heads, does this one do anything for you guys? It's supposed to look like the original James Bama box art that is posted also.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Mark McGovern said:


> Speaking of Frankenstein heads, does this one do anything for you guys? It's supposed to look like the original James Bama box art that is posted also.


Looks good - is that a new Yeager Monsters in Motion release?

BTW, dig that cool franky with the rad T!


----------



## Night-Owl (Mar 17, 2000)

Cool! Is it a new replacement head?


----------



## beck (Oct 22, 2003)

Hey Mcgee , that's cool ! i want one ! 
Madcap , those pics are great !!! 
hb


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Thanx


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

ChrisW said:


> Looks good - is that a new Yeager Monsters in Motion release?





Night-Owl said:


> Cool! Is it a new replacement head?





beck said:


> Hey Mcgee , that's cool ! i want one !


I sculpted the head, in 1/8 scale. And some replacement arms. And a new nameplate. And that's all I'll say for the moment, hee hee.

Mark McGee, what _am _I up to now?


----------



## Night-Owl (Mar 17, 2000)

If this become available sign me up for one! Is this your first foray into sculpting replacement parts?


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Actually, after years of frustration with my two-dimensional work, I've finally found satisfaction as a sculptor. Now, I'm no David or Rodin - or even Bill Lemon. But I've done enough resculpting of model parts that I thought, "how about a kit - if Night-Owl can bang 'em out, why not me?" 

There have been other replacement sets for the Aurora Frankenstein; it's amazed me that nobody has done a box art conversion set. That's what I'm _shooting _for, but don't nobody get too excited until I've got the kits done. When and if they're ready, I'll announce on HobbyTalk.


----------



## Duck Fink (May 2, 2005)

Mark McGovern said:


> Actually, after years of frustration with my two-dimensional work, I've finally found satisfaction as a sculptor. Now, I'm no David or Rodin - or even Bill Lemon. But I've done enough resculpting of model parts that I thought, "how about a kit - if Night-Owl can bang 'em out, why not me?"
> 
> There have been other replacement sets for the Aurora Frankenstein; it's amazed me that nobody has done a box art conversion set. That's what I'm _shooting _for, but don't nobody get too excited until I've got the kits done. When and if they're ready, I'll announce on HobbyTalk.


 Good deal Mark! I know your painting handiwork is tops....can't wait to see what you are sculpting over there. Wishing you good luck!


----------



## beck (Oct 22, 2003)

sounds great Mark . i'm definately down for one . 
hb


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Mark McGovern said:


> I sculpted the head, in 1/8 scale. And some replacement arms. And a new nameplate. And that's all I'll say for the moment, hee hee.




Fantastic! And I thought I was making progress on the bust I'm doing in larger scale...now I'm shamed into not posting the wip! Please advise when it's available!


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Way to go Mark - let your creativity burst forth!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Nice work Mark. I know this has been discussed before, but were those particular forehead thingies from a test make-up?


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Without having heard it from James Bama himself, I would have to say most likely, Zorro. As you may know, those forehead joints were inputs from James Whale, the director of _Frankenstein _(1931). They were discarded at the last moment in favor of the scar and *one *scalp staple on the Monster's forehead, but not before that one photo you posted was taken. This version of the makeup was apparently a hit with Mr. Bama, since he used it again for the cover painting on a paperback edition of Mary Shelley's novel.

Mark McG.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Mark McGovern said:


> Without having heard it from James Bama himself, I would have to say most likely, Zorro. As you may know, those forehead joints were inputs from James Whale, the director of _Frankenstein _(1931). They were discarded at the last moment in favor of the scar and *one *scalp staple on the Monster's forehead, but not before that one photo you posted was taken. This version of the makeup was apparently a hit with Mr. Bama, since he used it again for the cover painting on a paperback edition of Mary Shelley's novel.
> 
> Mark McG.


Man! I remember that paperback cover! Funny that when I was 10 years-old I was admiring the works of Bama not only from the Aurora kits I loved but was also drawn to his paperback art (Doc Savage was a particular fave) without ever realizing that the work was by the same artist. In fact, I never knew Bama's _name_ until I got back into Aurora kits as an adult.

And I did _not_ know those particulars about make-up. Thanks for the info.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Got that Bantam '67 edition in a box somewhere...very faintly over one shoulder you can make out "Bama." Wonder where that original painting got to? 

No way I could do it but always wanted to reproduce on a kit the truly nasty skin tone and texture Bama got for that cover...it truly is an indescribably gross color...I've seen lots of copies of that edition at used bookstores, they're around if you go looking.


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=40505.jpg

Cool! You know.... I actually have a copy of this paperback with the Bama cover.

- GJS


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

This is my first and so far only sculpting project, so please forgive the crudeness. Hasn't been touched in at least six months (hence the cracks); when the school year started I just didn't have time or energy to jump on it. Never could get the eyes quite right. Doubt I'll bother finishing it. It's btwn 4 and 5 inches high; got the idea after Mr. Yagher said at the last WF that he really wasn't sure how to sculpt the face of Bama's Frank, what with that upward-looking perspective and lighting. I got curious, so found some Primo on clearance and played around with it. This rough sculpt is as far as I ever got.



















For what it's worth from me, Mark, you have NAILED the Bama Frank. And to have done it in 1/8th is a feat I can only dream of (but know I don't have the skill to ever do...ah well). I've also wondered for years why no one tried it - glad to see that you have! I just hope you gave him massive shoulders like on the box (stock kit's shoulders are ridiculously narrow, esp. with that big ol' head). Thanks for your effort on this, count me in when you're ready to send them out.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Dang! Sorry those pics are so obnoxiously big...I haven't used Photobucket in almost a year and no pics ever came out this big. Sorry if it's a problem for the board - if it is I'll try to figure out how to reduce them.


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

*Aurora Frankie*

Speaking of the James Bama long box version of FRANKENSTEIN, I have always been a bit confused on whose likeness it is supposed to represent.








I started a thread on this subject over at the CLASSIC HORROR FILM BOARD (CHFB). There have been some truly great responses and observations made. If you're interested, check it out:

http://p075.ezboard.com/fmonsterkidclassichorrorforumfrm38.showMessage?topicID=985.topic

- GJS


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

Zorro said:


> Nice work Mark. I know this has been discussed before, but were those particular forehead thingies from a test make-up?


Yes indeed.
- GJS


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Quite "Frank"-ly, I wouldn't be suprised if somewhere in Bama's reference photo file cabinets there was a b/w photo of Bama or one of his friends in the Aurora cover Frankenstein pose, dramatic lighting and all. The character obviously isn't Karloff or Lugosi, and I'd be hard pressed to say it looks like Strange or Chaney, Jr. 

Here's my guess from an illustrator's viewpoint: This is the first (and possibly only) Aurora monster kit. It's a low paying assignment, and who knows what, if any, reference he was supplied beyond pictures of the acetate master. He sees the pose, considers the box format (very tall and narrow) and does a quick sketch. Takes some photos where he plays with the lighting, picks the best shot and using a handy Famous Monsters fakes in the monstrous details like the flat head, clamps and bolts.

...and a classic is born.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

I agree with the guys who say the boxart is a composite, drawn most likely from a variety of ref stills Bama was given to do the job. The body and pose is clearly either Chaney or Strange (I vote Strange based on the bulkiness - he was padded more than any of them - and it's closeness to the next-to-last shot of the Monster in A&CmF). 

The face and head also have the general shape of later films (plus the beauty mark on one cheek), but has features of Karloff, too (test horns, neck bolts are '31 OEM). No detectable Lugosi, tho. No black fingernails, either, which I believe they all had...Bama may not have had hand shots, only torso/head shots to go by?

And why'd he go with yellow? Torchlight? Or same reason he went with that sick grey-beige of the Bantam cover - artistic license? It works either way, but the only ref to the Monster having yellow skin is the original novel...since '31 it had become standard info the Monster was greenish (cartoons, etc).

That Universal would sent Bama pics of the early Karloff test makeup with the horns is beyond weird, but there it is. Or maybe Bama also was researching issues of FM? Forry had those test shots. Who knows. 

Note it's unclear if Bama's Frank has the heavy eyelids Karloff suggested (but which I think hadn't yet been added to the "horn" makeup), or if the up-shot perspective is just letting us see underneath them. 

The composite approach explains it best...it clearly IS the Universal Frank, and yet it isn't any one of them. Somebody on that board said Bama's a GENIUS. Yep.


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

Here are some publicity shots which may have had a striking influence on Bama's illustration:












Chaney's lips, 'butt chin', and doughy looking facial structure seem to be elements found in Bama's Long-box Franky. The camera angle of this shot may also have provided some inspiration.










Glenn Strange's more angular looking shoulders may have been an influence as well.










The paperback illustration above seems to be based on a Glenn Strange pose of the Monster. I haven't found an actual still, however. It may also have been influential. 

Someone pointed out that the wrinkles in the Monster's brow ridge, just over the bridge of his nose, as evidenced in Bama's Aurora painting is an element of the Monster's make-up that was only used in ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. I haven't found any photos to confirm this yet, however...

I don't doubt Chris White's notion that Bama may have used a model ( or even himself ) to get the actual pose, compostion and lighting but, the Monster seems to be a pastiche of various people ( much like the fictional character was! ).

- GJS


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

And for you PHANTOM fans... here's some comparrison shots of Bama's art with James Cagney's recreation of the famous un-masking scene:


















The pics are courtesy of Ted Newsom.

- GJS


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Guys,

Thank you for your kind comments about my box-art sculpt. It didn't happen overnight; in fact, I didn't have the nerve to even try it until I attended Ron Gross' eye-opening seminar on resin casting techniques at last year's WonderFest. Then it was on to casting a built-up kit Frankenstein kit head and sculpting the Bama face over that. The trick was to keep checking the features by viewing them under a similar low lighting angle. That and trying to get the Bill Lemon eyeballs with the irises and pupils lined up were the hardest.

I agree that Mr. Bama probably painted a more or less original Frankenstein Monster, based on all the photos he'd been given by Universal Studios (through Aurora). I don't believe he had a chance to see the finished kit before he started work. You'll recall that there were complaints about the disparity between the box art illos and models when Dracula and The Wolf Man were issued. After that, Bama worked from photos of the models themselves.

But aren't the box-art versions cool, too? Enough typing - it's back to the basement for me...

Mark McG.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

frankenstyrene said:


> ...I just hope you gave him massive shoulders like on the box (stock kit's shoulders are ridiculously narrow, esp. with that big ol' head).


Good point, frank, and timely, too. I have repositioned the arms and redone the Monster's coat sleeves. But I wasn't sure about those shoulders, which are almost at right angles to the neck.

To reproduce them would mean that the resin shoulders would extened over the kit shoulders and down where the Monster's shoulder blades would be. That would mean some formidable puttying for the modeler, to blend the joint of those resin parts into the styrene, because of the subtle cloth texture of the jacket. My current plan is to beef up the resin shoulders as much as I can while having the replacement arms attach to the jacket pretty much the way the kit assemblies do.

What would you guys like to see?

Mark McG.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

frankenstyrene said:


> That Universal would sent Bama pics of the early Karloff test makeup with the horns is beyond weird, but there it is.


Think about it though. This is 1961 we're talking here. The "Monster Craze" that Aurora would do so much to advance was still around the corner and Forry himself had only written the first few books of the Monster "Bible". Though the Universal Classics had been "rediscovered" through television, most people had no real familiarity with _any_ of this stuff. It's more than likely that when Aurora requested photos from Universal that some lowly file clerk was assigned to the task. And he probably didn't know a neck bolt from a forehead staple.


Sure is fun to talk about though.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Really, Zorro, I think that the "Monster Craze" started a bit earlier than you suggest. Zacherly and Vampira were were reintroducing the classic monster films in the late fifties. And the first _Famous Monsters of Filmland_ came out in '58 or '59 (anybody who knows for sure feel free to jump in).

So Aurora, while helping to continue the craze, was really only cashing in on it at the outset. According to Tom Graham, Bill Silverstein - Aurora's Director of Sales - got the idea to do the Frankenstein kit after seeing a bunch of kids lined up to see a rerelease of _Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man _and I forget which other film. The proposition that James Bama worked from Universal-supplied photos would seem to be supported by the many elements from different films that the posters on this thread have spotted in the Frankenstein box art painting.

I agree that it's fun to pour over this [email protected], though...have you read a newspaper lately?

Mark McG.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

That's a good point (re: lowly file clerk), and very likely what did happen. I'd thought the monster craze had already kicked off by '61, just wouldn't peak for a couple more years yet (since the "A" kits were instrumental in it). Incidentally...could that craze have happened as big as it did if Aurora red-lighted the idea from the get-go? Would it have happened at all, given how so much monster merchandise ripped off Aurora either in the item itself or in its packaging (or both)? We wouldn't be sitting here now typing if it didn't take off, that's for sure. Speculations will vary on answers to those questions...which is what makes it fun!


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

The Batman said:


>


I may be wrong, but I suspect somebody in the Marx sculpting department may have seen this photo...  Man was he ugly.



The Batman said:


> The paperback illustration above seems to be based on a Glenn Strange pose of the Monster. I haven't found an actual still, however. It may also have been influential.


It's almost identical to the shot of Strange walking into the fire on the dock (the last actual shot of him before they cut to the burning dummy). Lugosi kind of did that groping stagger, but Strange's is the closest actual movie shot I can think of to both the box pose and that book cover.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

frankenstyrene said:


> That's a good point (re: lowly file clerk), and very likely what did happen. I'd thought the monster craze had already kicked off by '61, just wouldn't peak for a couple more years yet (since the "A" kits were instrumental in it). Incidentally...could that craze have happened as big as it did if Aurora red-lighted the idea from the get-go? Would it have happened at all, given how so much monster merchandise ripped off Aurora either in the item itself or in its packaging (or both)? We wouldn't be sitting here now typing if it didn't take off, that's for sure. Speculations will vary on answers to those questions...which is what makes it fun!


Personally, I think the Aurora Monster kits were the _primary_ impetus that brought the "Monster Craze" to it's eventual full boil. My memory is colored by my personal experience of course but I remember the Aurora kits as being absolutely ubiquitous. I doubt there was any other "Classic Monster" toy line or item that came anywhere close to their sales numbers and I can't imagine that FMOF sold nearly as many magazines as Aurora sold Monster kits. I couldn't even _find_ Famous Monsters of Filmland at a news stand in Raleigh, NC in 1964 but Aurora monster kits were seemingly available in every hobby shop, toy store, and drug store in town. At least, that's the way I _remember_ it.


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

Zorro said:


> I couldn't even _find_ Famous Monsters of Filmland at a news stand in Raleigh, NC in 1964 but Aurora monster kits were seemingly available in every hobby shop, toy store, and drug store in town. At least, that's the way I _remember_ it.


The first FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND magazine that I recall seeing was one which appeared in a television commercial. Someone was sitting in a rowboat reading a copy that had Bela Lugosi on the cover ( wearing the rejected make-up from ISLAND OF LOST SOULS ). I think the commercial may have been a PS about littering....??? 

My next encounter with FM ( as I recall ) came from receiving a coupon inside an Aurora model kit box.
I do remenber getting a couple issues of MONSTER WORLD and some MUNSTERS related magazines before I actually finally found FM for myself. But, thank goodness I did!










Also, let's not forget the popularity of Bobby Pickett's hit song THE MONSTER MASH ( 1962 ) and other tunes like Sheb Wooley's PURPLE PEOPLE EATER which reached a teen fan base nationwide.










- GJS


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Zorro said:


> Aurora monster kits were seemingly available in every hobby shop, toy store, and drug store in town. At least, that's the way I _remember_ it.


That's what my dad (now 70) has said often...monster kits stacked a 3'-4' high in places you wouldn't necessarily expect. Did not have to go to a hobby shop if you wanted them, that's for sure (monster kits anyway...not sure same can be said for the rest of Aurora's line). 

Shoot, my monster memories only start around '72 and even that late in the game I saw them at Kresge/K-Mart, Scot Drug and a hardware store whose name I can't recall. I clearly recall getting a Hunchback from a store on the order of Lowe's or Home Depot...maybe Farm and Fleet...lots of lumber and yard stuff. 

I can't think of any single kid item since then that comes close either in saturation or duration (possibly Star Wars figures on the first run, but even that is doubtful). 

I'd love to see a photo of how they were stacked kid-high in stores, if anyone knows of one.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

i think you guys might be allowing bama more license than he actually had with the appearance of the monsters. Universals licensing department calls the shots about how the monsters appear in products and on packaging (unless of course he was universals official monster artist at that time) and the studios in-house art department probably gave him very tight guidelines about how they wanted the characters to appear... and if that didnt match how they appeared in the movies, too bad, the guidelines trump all.

an example: i once ptototyped an official wolfman mask and appliance for rubies costumes. at least i got to mimic the shape of chaney's nose prosthesis, but when it came to the coloration, the battle began. if you look at any stills (except those from A&C meet frank) its clear that the tip of the wolfman's nose is the same color as the rest of the face. the studio demanded that it be black. they also demanded this garish burnt sienna as his fur color, which made him look orange (i got away with using it as the highlight color only, then i added a lot of brown shadows so it looked ok.) the point is that once the committee has decided what these characters should look like for merchandising purposes, then you can forget about accuracy


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

razorwyre1 said:


> i think you guys might be allowing bama more license than he actually had with the appearance of the monsters. Universals licensing department calls the shots about how the monsters appear in products and on packaging (unless of course he was universals official monster artist at that time) and the studios in-house art department probably gave him very tight guidelines about how they wanted the characters to appear... and if that didnt match how they appeared in the movies, too bad, the guidelines trump all.
> 
> an example: i once ptototyped an official wolfman mask and appliance for rubies costumes. at least i got to mimic the shape of chaney's nose prosthesis, but when it came to the coloration, the battle began. if you look at any stills (except those from A&C meet frank) its clear that the tip of the wolfman's nose is the same color as the rest of the face. the studio demanded that it be black. they also demanded this garish burnt sienna as his fur color, which made him look orange (i got away with using it as the highlight color only, then i added a lot of brown shadows so it looked ok.) the point is that once the committee has decided what these characters should look like for merchandising purposes, then you can forget about accuracy


razorwyre 1 - Your personal experience is always interesting and informative but do you really think Universal even _had_ a "comittee" in 1961? I seriously doubt it. I really don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that if it had not been for Bama and Aurora in the first place - Universal wouldn't have nearly the "Monster" licensing goldmine that they do today. I'd bet 99% of those exacting "guidelines" you have to deal with came well after Bama had left the building.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

I'd agree with Zorro except - all this was decided _forty years_ ago. Can't we all just build models?

Mark McGee, this is all taking the spotlight off of the "Was the _Seaview _really white underneath?" debate.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

In one of the Aurora histories I remember reading that when Aurora approached Universal for the licensing, the response was on the order of "Why would you want to do something like that?" I think Zorro is spot on - it was after things really took off that the studios began to get serious about licensing. A good example is Universal getting licensing credit for "Dr. Jekyll as Mr. Hyde". The only Mr. Hyde they had was from "Abbott and Costello meet...", and it doesn't look a bit like that particular incarnation.

When I did the Wolf Man box art, Universal seemed to be more concerned about the colors of the box sides (lime green and purple, Universal's official monster packaging art colors) than the Wolf Man illustration itself. As long as it fit in the general guidelines as supplied by Universal (their style guide) they were ok. Paramount, on the other hand, controlled every aspect of the Trek stuff...

Razorwyre - you probably use the same style guides from Universal these days as I do. The characters look nothing like the actors that portrayed them - unless a specific actor likeness is desired. Universal would rather eliminate the actor and focus on the monster characteristics that make the copyright exclusively theirs.


----------



## beck (Oct 22, 2003)

true . as i recall the first run on Frankenstein kits didn't even have a Universal copyright on them . 
universal got very interested once they saw how fast they were selling though . 
hb


----------



## fjimi (Sep 29, 2004)

excellent thread and great insight. 

The sculpt work is fantastic btw.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Hey Bats, I keep meaning to ask: where the heck do you get all thos great movie stills from? I've been looking for that shot of the Cagney Phantom for _months._

Mark McG.


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

I can't really take any credit for the Phantom pic, McGee.... It was posted by someone else over on the Classic Horror Film Board ( CHFB ) and since it was a better shot than the one I had posted here previously ( years and years ago ) I thought the fellas over here on Hobby Talk would appreciate the chance to make the comparrison. You can thank Ted Newsom.

- GJS


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Thanks, Ted Newsom, wherever you are!


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

frankenstyrene said:


> I'd love to see a photo of how they were stacked kid-high in stores, if anyone knows of one.


Take a look at the latest Amazing Figure Modeler. Page 20 has a photo of Rick Palmer, a hobby shop owner from New Jersey who ran the Aurora Monster Customizing Contest for them. He's standing in his hobby shop surrounded by stacks of monsters, Weird-Ohs, etc.
Time to geez... We had a Kresge's in downtown Wilkes-Barre, whose toy section was managed by "Aunt Clara". When I first started looking fo rkits they were in a small alcove under the stairs, but later took up an aisle - and Aurora figure kits were a LARGE part of the display! We would walk to town on a Saturday Morning and go from store to store - at least 9 that I can recall - checking out what kits were new.


----------



## DoctorG (Jan 1, 1970)

Chris, that photo of Rick Palmer in the latest issue of AFM was absolutely great and captured well all the memories that a lot of us had as kids growing up with these kits.


G.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

Zorro said:


> razorwyre 1 - Your personal experience is always interesting and informative but do you really think Universal even _had_ a "comittee" in 1961? I seriously doubt it. I really don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that if it had not been for Bama and Aurora in the first place - Universal wouldn't have nearly the "Monster" licensing goldmine that they do today. I'd bet 99% of those exacting "guidelines" you have to deal with came well after Bama had left the building.


they undoubtedly didnt have the licensing division that they do now, and i agree that aurora and bama were groundbreakers in the field, but they still had an marketing and advertising department that had to be appeased, and those folks probably had a lot to do with the appearance of all the universal monsters whever they were presented to the general public. did bama have to deal with the color charts i did? no, but i'll bet he had to work relativly closely with the studio, and if there was a question, the studios opinion would have been the trump card.


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

Was finally able to track down this HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN still of Glenn Strange ( with the help of some friends ) :










Now, here's a close-up comparrison of Glenn's face and the face on Bama's Aurora box:










The structure of the faces are quite different, yet... there are also many points of simliarity. Particularly where the opened eyes, the mouth, the facial lines and the lighting is concerned. Kerry Gammill believes that Bama must have used this photo for reference.

Here's another similar pose from HOUSE OF DRACULA:










- GJS


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Holy detective work, Batman! It's the closest I've seen to the pose, and yet... Definite similarities, but definite differences as well. I was comparing hands between the photos and painting. Hands are difficult to paint, and Bama never tried to hide the fact that he often painted directly from photos, using a Lucien projector to project the photo onto the board. The differences between the painting and photos tell me that the hands, and probably the face as well, were from a different source. He may very well have had these Strange photos as reference, but I would bet he either took his own reference (maybe because he wanted the hands to have a more dramatic pose) or had another photo. 
Here's a completely unfounded conjecture - Universal provided reference of Strange (hey a Frankenstein monster is a Frankenstein monster...) while Aurora told Bama it was a Karloff Frankenstein. He picks up Famous Monsters, flips to the picture of the test makeup of Karloff with the head clamps, and uses both to composite a Karloffian Frankenstein in the Strange pose...Hey, this is fun!


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

I'm kind of thinking the same, Chris. Bama may have had these Glenn Strange photos for reference and inspiration... but, may have used his own model to get the pose the way he wanted it and tried duplicating the lighting from the reference pics.

- GJS


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

oh he was definatly using the strange photo as a source. he may have been instructed not to use any particular actor as the monster, also, knowing the life of a freelance commercial illustrator, he may have had to bang these out fast and therefore when it comes to the likeness (not to mention the level of finish of the paintings themselves), the rule might have been "close counts".


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

razorwyre1 said:


> oh he was definatly using the strange photo as a source. he may have been instructed not to use any particular actor as the monster, also, knowing the life of a freelance commercial illustrator, he may have had to bang these out fast and therefore when it comes to the likeness (not to mention the level of finish of the paintings themselves), the rule might have been "close counts".


There is an interview with Bama in Bill Bruegman's Aurora History and Price Guide. Bama was working as an illustrator at the Charles Cooper Studios in New York. Aurora was one of their clients, and Bama was chosen to do the illustrations. It says "Bama was furnished with a few movie stills for reference, and coupled with his childhood memoriesof the characters on the big screen the artist produced some of his most fondly remembered commercial art." He also says that doing the art was a step backwards, compared to some of the other clients he was working for at the time. Also that they were "real cheap jobs."
In Tom Graham's book about Aurora model kits, Mr. Graham states that with the quick success of the monsters, Bama and Aurora sculptor Bill Lemon were producing their material at the same time, so were unable to coordinate their efforts - hence, the art that did not match the kits. Later after receiving complaints, Aurora would send stills of the finished painted acetate masters to Bama which he would use as the basis of the art. I find it interesting, though, that while the Bride of Frankenstein and the Witch were later releases, he still preferred to create his own compositions.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

ChrisW said:


> ...I find it interesting, though, that while the Bride of Frankenstein and the Witch were later releases, he still preferred to create his own compositions.


Rumor has it (and I'm not saying this just to be mean) that _Mrs. _Bama was the model for The Witch. What price Glory?

Mark McG.


----------



## Night-Owl (Mar 17, 2000)

Not rumor, its true! Check out page 45 of Tom Graham's second Aurora book there is the reference photo of Mrs Bama next to the witch painting.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

ChrisW said:


> I find it interesting, though, that while the Bride of Frankenstein and the Witch were later releases, he still preferred to create his own compositions.


well i remember an interveiw with one of the top B-movie poster illustrators of the 50's and 60's, who said the rule was "don't smell it, sell it." theres probably a similar situation here. accuracy to the kit took a back seat to something that would look good on the box and sell the kit.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

razorwyre1 said:


> ...accuracy to the kit took a back seat to something that would look good on the box and sell the kit.


Sure worked, didn't it?


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Mark McGovern said:


> Sure worked, didn't it?


amen!


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

And it still does. 

I showed the Monster bit of the Aurora kit video to the kids in my modeling class - reactions ranged from "hey, cool" to generally "yeah, that's nice, now what?" to "zzzzzzzz." 

But they were far more captivated by the boxtops I have. And at least one did say, "Hey, how come the models look like this?" 

BTW, judging of the Kong Kit Kompetition is toward the end of May, will post pics then.


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

Here's another interesting twist. Even though the Aurora Frankenstein model ( not talking about the box art but, the model itself ) is definitely the likeness of Boris Karloff, and definitely patterned after his appearance in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN - It sure looks like the POSE for the model may have been inspired by this photo of Glenn Strange:


















Seems quite similar, no?

- GJS


----------



## beck (Oct 22, 2003)

indeed ! Great pics GeeJay . 
hb


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

beck said:


> indeed ! Great pics GeeJay .
> hb


Thanx. Ted Newsom made the observation that the poses were similar and Kerry Gammill tracked down the photo of Glenn Strange that he had been talking about ( over on the CHFB ). I just posted the pic here - along with one of the Aurora Frankie to compare it. 'Glad you like 'em.










- GJS


----------



## fjimi (Sep 29, 2004)

Again, more great insite. Best I can see is Strange for the box art (even look at the bottom of the earlobes) and Karloff for the model. 

Now what about that Jethro wolfman?


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Completely generic, fairytale-type werewolf for the squarebox artwork, much like the kit itself. If I live to be 100 I will never understand what Aurora was thinking with that kit.


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

"







The way ya'll walks is thorny. An' the fault is all your'n! But as the vittles enter yer gullet, an the lye soap gets poured into the SEE-ment pond, so yer lazy bones lies down fer a spell. Rest fer now, Jethro.... 'cuz when I catches up with ya, I'm gonna whup the tar outta ya!"










"Weeeee'll Doggies! That ain't no Giant Jack Rabbit!"










- GJS


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

The original Longbox art for the Wolf Man model was clearly based on Lon Chaney jr's facial characteristics - but the EARS and the costuming were borrowed from Oliver Reed in CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF!

- GJS


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0034398/Ss/0034398/wolf1.jpg.html?path=gallery&path_key=0034398

Above, here's a link to the photo of Lon jr. upon which that movie poster is based.

And below, here's a little photoshop experiment that Kerry Gammill did years ago to make the Aurora boxart more _Chaney-esque_:










- GJS


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

THAT is cool! If he'd darkened the fur just a tad it'd be dead on perfect.


----------

