# Aurora Theory of mine on the wolfman kit



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

This just a theory of mine.But do you think before Aurora did the wolfman kit they had original plans to do the Oliver Reed werewolf kit first but scrapped the idea maybe because Hammer Films didnt want one of their monsters in styrene.So they went with Universal instead that why the boxart looks like a cross between Oliver reeds werewolf and Chaneys wolfman?You know what would be even funnier is if there is a Curse of the werewolf sculpt that maybe Lemon or one of the other Aurora sculptors did and nobody knows about it or even thought about if they did one and just never mentioned it.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Interesting theory Dan.
I think that after Bill Silverstein got the go ahead from Universal for the monsters and Frankie did so well, Wolfman was rushed into production. Maybe Lemon didn't have the time to do a proper sculpt so we got what we got. Bamas painting as you know isn't the same as the kit and the base isn't as detailed as it could have been so they appear to have been working on everything at the same time without communication between them.
I really don't think everyone knows exactly what Aurora was doing in the '70's as Nabisco took control, nor do we know exactly what was scrapped so they could have been working on another Wolfie. I think it's more speculative than anything else.
Good topic Dan!:thumbsup:

Chris.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

Auroranut said:


> Interesting theory Dan.
> I think that after Bill Silverstein got the go ahead from Universal for the monsters and Frankie did so well, Wolfman was rushed into production. Maybe Lemon didn't have the time to do a proper sculpt so we got what we got. Bamas painting as you know isn't the same as the kit and the base isn't as detailed as it could have been so they appear to have been working on everything at the same time without communication between them.
> I really don't think everyone knows exactly what Aurora was doing in the '70's as Nabisco took control, nor do we know exactly what was scrapped so they could have been working on another Wolfie. I think it's more speculative than anything else.
> Good topic Dan!:thumbsup:
> ...


Thanks Chris and that theory of mine was drivin me nuts the more look at the Aurora Wolfman kit that have in my closet.:thumbsup:


----------



## Scheisseler (Jul 11, 2007)

I think that Aurora bought a group license from Universal to cover the first few kits, and then after that it was just a happy coincidence if the kits or their settings looked anything like the Universal versions. Clearly the reference material that Aurora was given wasn't anywhere near as detailed as you'd get in this day and age. Just look at Bama's work. The box art for Phantom and Wolfman resemble the Hammer characters more than the Universal, which isn't so bad because Universal at least distributed those movies. But the art for Jekyll is obviously based on the Fredric March version (NOT a Universal film) and the Hunchback painting originally looked like Anthony Quinn (ditto)!


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

i think the the deal was that while they didnt actually want to license and produce the hammer version, they did want to tie their wolfman kit to it in some way, because it was far more recent. the box are was the way. notice that unlike the rest of them, when the square box was released, and the hammer film just a memory and a saturday afternoon rerun, they switched to a painting that was unquestionably universal.


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

I read once where the resemblence of the Frankenstein kit to the box art was just a coincidence. The artist didnt have a built up kit to go from, the same thing happened with Drac and the Wolfman ( without the lucky results) They had sooo many complaints on Drac and Wolfie, that the rest of the box art was based on the built up kits, the Mummy ect...


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

I read that too otto. 

Chris.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Me three. According to the Aurora history books I have, there was no "in house" communication between James Bama and Bill Lemon, for the simple reason that both were subcontractors who were hired to do specific jobs; they weren't really Aurora employees as such.

Once Bill Silverstein secured the licensing to do the Universal monsters, the studio provided Aurora with a stick of 8 X 10 phtotgraphs on which to base the kits. Both Bama and Lemon received the photos but worked independently, which is why the first three monster kits didn't match the box art. The hue and cry from the public over this disparity caused Aurora to furnish Lemon with photographs of the finished models _only _on which to base his paintings (some of these, notably the iullustration for The Phantom of the Opera, still had to deviate from kit in order to fit the dimensions of the box).

The Hammer Films connection with Universal (and hence its influence on the Aurora kits, through the movie stills) was sealed witha distribution deal that helped finance Hammer's _Horror of Dracula_ (1959). Part of the deal aloowed Hammer to remake Universal's horror film library - that's apparent when you consider the similarities between _The Mummy_ (1959) and the Lon Chaney series at Universal or the resemblace of Kiwi Kingston's 'Creature' in _The Evil of Frankenstein_ (1964) to the classic Universal Frankenstein. Since it was around this time that the first Aurora monster models were being released, it's only natural that some Hammer material was included with the Universal stills that were given to James Bama and Bill Lemon. That's how those cute Curse of the Werewolf ears ended up on the Wolf Man.

By the way, The Phantom of the Opera box art was based on the make up worn by James Cagney in _Man of a Thousand Faces_ (1955), not any Hammer character. How that gaff in the use of Anthony Quinn's likeness for the Hunchback of Notre Dame cover painting came to happen is more than I can say; I couldn't find any connection between the French/Italian producers of the 1956 picture or its distributors and Universal or Hammer. Same goes for the Dr. Jekyll as Mr. Hyde box art: Universal has never owned the 1931 Frederick March film. It was produced by Paramount, then the story rights were sold to MGM for the 1941 remake that starred Spencer Tracy. However the model kit (this time sculpted by Ray Meyers) was clearly based on Hyde's appearance in _Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_ (1953).

Mark McG.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

The Aurora monsters don't often even come from the movie you would think...

The Frankenstein Monster is from Bride of Frankenstein (burns on head and torn clothes)
The Mummy is not from the Karloff film but one of the 40s versions (Tom Tyler or Chaney?)
I think the Dracula was modelled on A and C meet Frankenstein
The Hunchback is based on the Chaney movie but the face is not Chaney and the box art was for Quinn.
The Wolfman... doesn't really resemble any cinematic wolfman unless Lil Abner turned into one! And the box art is like the Oliver Reed body/clothes with the Chaney Jr. head.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

dj,

I will argue that the _face_ of the Hunchback looks more like Chaney, Sr. than any other actor in the role, although the hair is much shorter. The wheel to which Chaney was tied was made of stone, whereas Quinn's was clearly the basis for the kit item.


Mark McG.


----------



## mrmurph (Nov 21, 2007)

An interesting thread with lots of cool tidbits. 
My 2 cents: The wolfman in Bama's painting resembles the Chaney character wearing Oliver Reed's outfit. I'm wonder if difficulty in getting parts out of the mold created the need for less dynamic poses for the wolfman and dracula. 

So Wolfie, are you looking forward to the Wolfman remake? Online photos provide useful information for color painting tips.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

I wish Moebius would have done a new Wolfman for the upcoming movie instead of the very lame Ironman doing nothing...


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Still unclear on something: if the sculptor had pics of both Chaney Jr. and Oliver Reed to work from (Bama obviously did), why does the Wolfman kit itself look like neither one? One of them modeling mysteries that's well just never know, I guess.


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

Frankenstyrne, you may have figgured out the mystery. If he had pics of both, and no idea which kit they would do...he couldnt go too wrong in blending the two versions together, at least whatever the kit looked like, he thought he would have it "half right" LOL...


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

My own view is that, as these were the very first monster models ever, it was enough for Bill Lemon to capture the subject - even if not a particular character's likeness. And, although Universal and Hammer were getting fairly chummy at the time, it was the _Universal _monsters that Aurora had licensed. But frankenstyrene is probably right, since Mr. Lemon has passed on, we'll probably never know just what his thinking was. But we still have those classic models.

Mark McG.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Aurora was never that swift on research... for example their Yamato battleship has two totally different gun layouts depending on which side of the model you look at. Aurora worked from port and starboard photos of the real ship without understanding that one photo showed the Yamato as she was built and the other after she was heavily modified and refitted... so the kit is like two kits in one depending on what side you view. Totally bogus! So I can see for the Wolfman, etc. someone gets some publicity photos not realizing there is "The Wolfman", "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman" etc. Then Aurora hires someone else to paint a box top for the kit and says ok paint us up a Wolfman... so maybe they see some photos from Oliver Reed's movie, whcih is in color, and he has more interesting clothing, but then every one knew Lon Chaney as "The Wolfman" so he put the Chaney head on the Reed body for the composite painting.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Mark McGovern said:


> My own view is that, as these were the very first monster models ever, it was enough for Bill Lemon to capture the subject - even if not a particular character's likeness. And, although Universal and Hammer were getting fairly chummy at the time, it was the _Universal _monsters that Aurora had licensed. But frankenstyrene is probably right, since Mr. Lemon has passed on, we'll probably never know just what his thinking was. But we still have those classic models.
> 
> Mark McG.


Good theory, and it'd be watertight if Lemon hadn't nailed the Monster from BoF on Aurora's first kit out, then (kinda) nailed Lugosi's Dracula on the second. Why he'd _then_ go so generic and nondescript on the Wolfman, then REALLY nail the '40s era Mummy (don't recall if WM or Mummy came first), well, it's really baffling. I don't know about anyone else but I've never ever seen _anything_ of Chaney in Aurora's Wolf Man kit, and even less of Reed. I don't see The Wolf Man, or even a Wolf Man. I see a werewolf. Maybe it's just me. 

Anyway, it is apparently a fun mystery that man was not meant to know.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

frank,

Just to cloud things up a little more, the order of the original releases of the Aurora monster models was: Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolf Man, the Mummy, the Creature from the Black lagoon, the Phantom of the Opera, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Dr. Jekyll as Mr. Hyde. These are the 1/8 scale (they were identified as such - leave us not open _that _can of worms!) kits, of course; and all but Dr. Jekyll were sculpted by Bill Lemon.

Mark McG.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

The Wolf Man really is a mystery sculpt. As a kid I always identified him with the _teenage werewolf_ - not that he looks like that character, just that the physique looked like a built up teenager! If the name was removed from the base it really could be marketed as a generic werewolf...
As a side note, I've mentioned often that the Wolf Man was the first Aurora kit I ever owned, built and painted by my dad. I was just looking at it and realized it is the only kit that I haven't "restored" - it's still the same as my dad built it for me 46 years ago. I think that's kind of cool!


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

It's the one monster kit I just can't bring myself to find a reason to build anymore (that and Kong). And I've got several of both.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

remember this: universal has what is referred to as a "style guide". it includes artwork and official coloration for the character that they are licensing. sometimes that style guide doesnt match the actual appearance of the character in the film, but the artist working for the licensee must follow the guide, not the movie when designing the product.
what i am getting at is that universal may have handed aurora a drawing of the wolfman which didnt look much like chaney, and they had to go by that.

another thought: bela lugosi jr sued aurora and universal over using his fathers likeness on the dracula kit. id like to know the chronology of the lawsuit vs. the kit releases, because if the lawsuit was ongoing while the wolfman kit was in development, it would explain what that kit looks so little like the character while the ones before and after it (lugosi lost that round) are pretty much right on. if you were developing a new kit in a line while fighting a lawsuit about the previous one, wouldnt you be awfully cautious about its design?


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

raze,

I think the answers to your questions about the Universal style guides and the Lugosi estate's lawsuit re: the Aurora Dracula kit lie in the fact that the model was first engineered in 1962, long before Universal realized what a cash cow it still had in its classic monster movie library. Oh, sure, the studio was bringing money in by renting prints to television, but it was the "Monster Craze" later on in the decade, and home video after that I think that really made the company decide to formalize the manner in which these characters could be used.

I have no doubt that when the Karloff/Lugosi/Chaney estates saw how their relatives' performances were still generating large amounts of money for the studios, they very rightfully sought a share of the profits. It was the John Wayne estate that set the precedent for controlling posthumously the use of an actor's likeness, and as far as I know, that didn't happen until the 1990s. From then on things were different - you'll recall that the Revellogram long box reissues of 1999 carried the "Universal Monsters" logo as well as certifications from the various actors' estates on the instructions.

Don't forget that these were the very first monster figure kits. Apparently it was enough to issue a model of a wolf man of any kind (and, IMHO, a fine one at that), even if it wasn't an accurate representation of THE Wolf Man. That was then and this is now, when there are a couple manufacturers of aftermarket heads to make the model look more like Lon Chaney, Jr. So a modeler no longer has to settle for merely the kit as it comes from the box.

Mark McG.


----------



## Roland (Feb 4, 1999)

Ask the Artist James Bama why he made the Wolfman art different than the actual model. He would know better than anyone else.


----------



## proflindenbrook (Jan 27, 2006)

*Secrets of the Hunchback*

I agree with the posts indicating how the monsters were rushed into production after the indication that Frankenstein was going to be a hit. One classic example of misinformation is the legendary Anthony Quinn objecting to his likeness being used on the kit box. I doubt he cared,BUT RKO definitely cared because it is THEIR version of the Hunchback that the art was based on and NOT the Universal Pictures version. Aurora had the rights to the Universal monsters. The Quinn picture was RKO, end of mystery. The other "rush" mishap in the instruction sheet became only apparent to me after decades and only after building the kit a half dozen times. I recently came across an original kit in a beat box so I decided to build it...again. Something always bugged me about this kit.The rotating platform that the Hunchback kneels on never made sense...until I realized a not-so obvious miscommunication between the kit designer and the person who put together the instruction sheet.They had us cement the bushing to the inside of the pedestal-WRONG- because then the platform, although free to rotate, will come off if you mishandled the kit. BUT, if you apply cement to the very top lip of the bushing and TRAP the pedestal between the bushing and platform...viola! You have a rotating platform that does not come off! That is how I believe Bill Lemon wanted the kit to work, but the mistake was never changed in the instructions and as kids we just took the instructions as Gospel. Now , this can be my LAST Hunchback kit....maybe.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

prof,

According to the Internet resources I looked at, the 1957 version of _Notre Dame de Paris _was produced by two European outfits, Panitalia and Paris Film Productions. It was released in the U.S. by Allied Artists as _The Hunchback of Notre Dame_, but RKO had nothing to do with the picture as far as I've been able to determine.

But your remarks about that freakin' bushing make sense. If there was ever a model that had a self-destruct feature built into it, it's the Hunchback, waiting to take a tumble off his pedestal at the slightest excuse. Thanks for your insight - don't know that I'll ever build another one, but if I do I'll remember what you said.

Mark McG.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Panitalia..... sounds rude.....

Chris.


----------



## proflindenbrook (Jan 27, 2006)

Yes Mark you are correct-Allied Artists for the Quinn Hunchback movie...I must have been thinking of the 1939 CL version? Still, IMHO,I think that is what killed the box art of the Quinn kit. Interestingly enough the Bantam paperback of 1956 carries prelim artwork of Quinn as the HB on the cover and the Avon books release is a movie tie-in with him on the cover as well as photos inside the book: Avon t-190 from 1957...never heard complaints but,technically Aurora should have stuck with the Chaney version on the box to abide with the licensing agreement.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

proflindenbrook said:


> ...technically Aurora should have stuck with the Chaney version on the box to abide with the licensing agreement.


You're probably right about that, prof. Although I have no personal knowledge about the details of that agreement, it would certainly make interesting reading. Why James Bama came to use Anthony Quinn's likeness for the intitial box art and how Bill Lemon came to base the model's pedestal on the 1956 movie item (see my post #10 on this thread for a photo) are among those questions that we may never get answers to, though at this late date I'm not sure we need 'em.

Mark McG.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Highly confusing. Original art looks like Quinn. Subsequent tweaks look nothing like Chaney. And the kit itself looks like Charles Bronson.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Auroranut said:


> Panitalia..... sounds rude.....


Rude? Sounds more like a cigar to me.


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

Hmmm, I was thinking a rude cigar..


----------

