# Bride of Frankenstein problem



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Having just now seen the latest post by paulhelfrich of the Bride, it brought to my attention yet again what appears to be a design flaw with the model, which I can only assume has been discussed before.

The problem is with how the Bride does not lay flat on the table. It seems the bulk of her hair and the height of the headrest both conspire to prevent the Bride from lying flat, as I believe she should be. Consequently, in paulhelfrich's Bride, as well as many others I've seen, the Bride's body winds up being awkwardly and unnaturally suspended off the table.

I was wondering how others may have solved this problem. Two possibilities come to mind: 

1. Cut down the height of the headrest. The problem with doing that is that the two circular brain stimulators thingies that sit on either side of the Bride's head may not fit properly after a height adjustment — the attachment points would probably poke up above a significantly reduced headrest, not looking very good.

2. Cut down some of the bulk from the Bride's hair. I'm thinking of a straight across cut at the back of her hair, taking off a lot of the roundness — which would then lay flush with the headrest — so that it looks like the hair is flattened against the headrest, presumably from the weight if her head. At first glance, this would seem to be the most likely solution.

Sooo ... anybody try fixing this problem, and if so, how did you do and what were the results/problems/pitfalls?

Thanks.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Naah, that ain't it Frankie - if you closely at Paul's photos, you'll see that the Bride's hair doesn't come into contact with the head rest at all. The Bride doesn't lay flat because there's a slight curve to her body so her shoulders and upper back "float" above the table. One fix might be to hold her body halves together with rubber bands, soften the assembly in really hot water, then clamp her to a flat surface. But I took an easier way out with mine, filling the gap between her upper body and the table with Aves Apoxie Sculpt. The putty was sculpted with bandages like those molded into the kit parts so as not to be noticeable.


----------



## apls (Dec 5, 2005)

The only problem I can see, and it may be nitpicking, is the coat on the Monster is not torn or tattered, it looks like the sleeves are still new.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

apls said:


> The only problem I can see, and it may be nitpicking, is the coat on the Monster is not torn or tattered, it looks like the sleeves are still new.


what are you talking about?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

He thinks you're talking about the upcoming Moebius bride-and-monster model instead of the old Aurora kit.

From the above photo, it looks like the bride is trying to sit up.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Yes in the original kit the figure is leaning forward/rising up. So its not a problem per se.

I noticed that Jimmy Flintstone makes a resin reclining bride that seems to be intended as a replacement for this kit. This is NOT the standing figure he offers.


----------



## Tim Casey (Dec 4, 2004)

I know what you mean about the problem; I made the headrest shorter with a hobby saw.

BTW, nice build on that model, Mark!


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Thanks, TC. It was the first time I (successfully) lighted a model. But the real work was in removing the locators inside the clear vessel parts, cleaning up the scratches, then doing it all over again on the outsides. With all that sanding and polishing, I was able to do one-armed chin-ups for six months after I finished the model...


----------



## paulhelfrich (May 11, 2009)

I think that part (her head and shoulders rising off the table) was intentional in Aurora's sculpt. It's like the moment of re-animation; she's trying to sit up. The restraints won't let her move the rest of her body but she would be able to raise her head. 

If you think about it, if you were in that position and were suddenly startled, it would be your upper body that would rise up first.

Of course, that probably also solved a sculpting problem too, in that her big hair would be compressed if it was in contact with the headrest. Keep in mind that in the movie we never see Elsa Lanchester with that hair in a position other than standing up - when the Bride is on the table in the movie, I think she's completely bandaged head to toe.


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Mark: I don't see that. It looks to me like the hair IS in contact with the headrest however slightly. And as far as the "heat her body in warm water and bend it" idea is concerned, I think that would make more sense to do it with her arms. (See my comment below)

paulhelfrich: Polar Lights didn't make the sculpt, Aurora did. Polar Lights may have reversed engineered it, but it's not their sculpt.

In any event, I understand the intention of her trying to raise her head, but if that was indeed the intention, then the arms are not right. They should be flat against the table (at the elbows) to give her support in lifting her head. As it is, it just doesn't look right. In the position she's forced into because of the sculpt, she looks like she's still suffering from rigor mortis.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Frankie,

Take a closer look; the Bride's hair is close to, but not in contact with, the head rest. I suppose that a particular sample of the kit might be warped or that a builder might misalign the head, torso, and arm assemblies so that the hair did indeed push the body up off the table. But I can only say again that the Bride's hair was not the reason for her shoulders not laying flat with the model I built. You'll see this when you build one of your own.

You're right about the issue with the arms. They won't lay flat on the table without a little surgery. Or, if a builder wants to go that route, he/she could have the arms maybe reaching up instead of laying flat.


----------



## apls (Dec 5, 2005)

What I was talking about, djnick66, was the Monster's jacket shows no damage, tears on the sleeves, from the fire in "Frankenstein", I would also like to see this from another angle to see if the (burn) scars are there as well. I am going to buy it anyway.


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

Mark McGovern said:


> But I took an easier way out with mine, filling the gap between her upper body and the table with Aves Apoxie Sculpt. The putty was sculpted with bandages like those molded into the kit parts so as not to be noticeable.


Mark, That's a beautiful build.


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Mark: yeah, guess you're right. But even if the hair is not touching, there still remains the problem with how the Bride does not lie properly on the table.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

apls said:


> What I was talking about, djnick66, was the Monster's jacket shows no damage, tears on the sleeves, from the fire in "Frankenstein", I would also like to see this from another angle to see if the (burn) scars are there as well. I am going to buy it anyway.


I think the problem is that you're referring to a different kit apls. This thread is for the Aurora/Polar Lights "Bride of Frankenstein" kit with the "Bride" laying on Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory table, not the upcoming Moebius "Bride of Frankenstein" two-figure kit with the Bride and the Monster sitting side-by-side.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Frankie Boy said:


> ...there still remains the problem with how the Bride does not lie properly on the table.


Oh yes. Another fix that occurs to me that could solve the problems of the Bride's back and arms not laying flat on the table. If the elbows were cut and bent at a slightly greater angle and the upper arms repositioned a bit at her shoulders, this would bring the forearms and hands into contact with the table. The effect would be of the Bride attempting to raise herself up. It would be more dramatic than the kit pose, though probably more work than any of the procedures I've mentioned in my earlier posts.

FYI, if you're looking to try to raise the lab table top so it looks like the box art, be prepared to do some scratchbuilding. I made an abortive attempt to do that, which is why many of the elements of my Bride's table look a little rough. I had to scratchbuild replacements for those I destroyed.

The table surpports are set at 45 degrees and don't allow enough clearance for the top to tilt any more than that angle. Also, the supports are also too short to allow sufficient clearance off the floor. So if you should wish to raise the table vertically you'd have to cut the semicircular hub away from the kit supports and make new ones from 1/4" square stock. The new supports would need to be arranged so the center hub is a bit higher off the ground than half the length of the table, which would require them being set at around 30 degree angles.

As for the exposed underside of the table top, screen captures reveal that the kit item - a flat, shallow upside-down tray - was made just like the real one in _Bride of Frankenstein_ (1935). The movie table looks to have been made of metal (aluminum?).


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Mark: Yes, the "cut her arms at the elbows" idea also occurred to me. But I would think that would be a lot more bother, with having to then resculpt her arm bandages and all that. And even then, making sure you maintain just the right angle on her arms for the finished pose while you're doing all that surgery ... hmm? I dunno. For none but the brave I dare say.

Certainly I would be a lot more comfortable chopping a bit of her hair off at the back to lie flat against the headrest. And if the angle weren't spot-on, one could then fill the gap with putty and it should still look totally fine.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Frankie Boy said:


> ...I would be a lot more comfortable chopping a bit of her hair off at the back to lie flat against the headrest...


Frankie,

I say again, the hair is not the problem. It's the pose of the body and arm assemblies. You'll see this for yourself when you get up close and personal with your own kit, trust me.


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Mark: What are you saying, (forget the kit's surgical table and headrest) that the Bride won't lay flat even on, say, any old flat surface? (I have the kit but have not built it yet)


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Exactly. The curve of her back is such that her hair clears the head rest, which is why she doesn't lay flat. The fit of the arms is what keeps them from laying flat on the table as well. Possibly it was intended that she looks as though she's trying to raise herself up (which was what I thought back in the '60s when I first built the model).

If you want her to be flat on the table, you'll have to do some work, as the other respondents and I have suggested. Or take the easy way out and simply decide the the kit pose is not a problem, that you want your Bride to look like she's trying to raise herself off the table!


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Ahhhhh. Okay, that makes the problem clearer. Thanks!


----------



## Roy Kirchoff (Jan 1, 1970)

You guys need to get out more. :drunk:

~RK~


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Just for that, I'm heading back to my basement * _SLAM!_ *


----------



## Dr. Syn (May 29, 2003)

One could respond: "Hey, it's an Aurora kit. They all had fit issues of some kind. That's the charm of the Aurora kits". 

I mean, has anyone figured out how to get Dr. Jekyll's arm and hand positioned so it's really grabbing his throat without doing major surgury on it? (I'm not trying to derail the thread so you don't really need to respond to that. It was more rhetorical.)


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Funny you should mention that, but I was going to point to the J & H kit as having a similar problem to that of the Bride (ie: the sculpt is wrong for what is supposedly trying to be achieved by the model's position — or parts thereof).

Actually, not to derail my own thread (lol) but the other "correction" I wish had occurred would have been to have standardized the sizes to 1/8th scale with all the monsters — with the exception of King Kong and Godzilla, of course; they could have/should have been booted up in size/scale. The Bride is 1/10th scale , I believe.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Or 1/11, depending on which book you check. When Polar Lights reverse-engineered the 1/12 scale Marvel heroes kits, they hit the "1/8 scale button" on the computer and made the kits the same as the DC heroes (except Wonder Woman). Would that PL could've done that with WW, the Guillotine, etc.!

As for Jekyll's left arm, it doesn't require _major_ surgery to place the hand on his throat. One would just need to trim off the locators and reposition the arm. Then there's be some filling filing, and sanding to bring the arm's contours in line with the left shoulder.

FYI, Aurora's King Kong is 1/25 scale. I figured that by measuring the girl; she's 2-1/2 inches tall and Fay Wray was 63 inches in length. In this scale, the 10 inch long Kong model represents a critter that would stand just under 21 feet tall. That's not the fifty feet stated by the film's publicists, but pretty formidable for a gorilla nevertheless.


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

Yes, hitting the "1/8th scale button" for sure ... and Spidernman and the Hulk are exactly what I was thinking of (and that it was entirely possible) to make such a scale change.

As for J & H, have you done this fix on the arm, and if so, have you got a picture you can post so I can see how it looks? I don't believe I've ever seen a picture of his arm in a corrected position. And if anybody else is reading this who has done such a fix, and has a picture to post, it would be much appreciated.

As for King Kong, if you consider the close-ups of Fay Wray in Kong's hand, either back at his lair or on the Empire State Building, the proportions of her in his hand seem to be about right with respect to the model. But in other scenes from the movie (in long shots particularly), Kong seems either larger or Fay Wray (or other people) seems smaller. So the perceived size of Kong seems to flucuate within the movie itself.

I believe there were a couple of different Kong models used in the movie, depending on what the scene called for. The hand and the head (for close-ups) were their own separate props. Anyway, there may not have been the greatest consistency of scale from one scene to the next ... or between what we see on screen and the publicist's claims.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Frankie Boy said:


> ...So the perceived size of Kong seems to flucuate within the movie itself...


You hit that nail on the head, Frankie. Even the producers of the last Kong remake admitted that they played with Kong's scale to suit the scene. If you've ever seen a 1/24 scale airplane model, you'll appreciate how big it would be in comparison to Aurora's 1/25 scale King Kong. Yet even the movie posters showed Fay Wray held comfortably in one paw while Kong crushed a two-seater airplane in the other! To have an Aurora Kong posed the same way, you'd have to put a 1/72 scale airplane (about one third the scale of the Kong figure) in his paw.


----------



## buzzconroy (Jun 28, 2002)

I looked at the original prototype pattern photos, same scenero, so it wasn't a engineer tooling problem, maybe a sculpting issue?

Randy


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

B.C.,

Hah? A little more specificity, if you please. You described nearly _every_ Aurora figure...


----------



## buzzconroy (Jun 28, 2002)

Mark McGovern said:


> B.C.,
> 
> Hah? A little more specificity, if you please. You described nearly _every_ Aurora figure...


The Bride.

Randy


----------

