# If the Aurora 2001 clipper was ever reissued?



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I'm not making any assumptions that this will ever be reissued even though Moebius have just reissued the Moonbus but I was wondering...what could be added to make it more accurate if it ever was? There's a triangular type bit on the top which is missing plus I seem to remember the Aurora kit was lacking those little circular bits at the back near the main engine.


----------



## buzzconroy (Jun 28, 2002)

It was reissued in 1975 by Aurora, new box art.

Randy


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

buzzconroy said:


> It was reissued in 1975 by Aurora, new box art.
> 
> Randy




Indeed, but I'm talking about if it was reissued again. It might well be at some point as a lot of kits get reissued as we all know. It would be cool to have it reissued with a new sprue of detail parts like what Moebius did with the Moonbus. Of course it would depend I suppose on whether the Moonbus sells ok (not that I'm assuming Moebius has any plans to bring it out again).


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

*Id love to see it repopped exactly as it originally was issued...

Z
*


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Zathros said:


> *Id love to see it repopped exactly as it originally was issued...
> 
> Z
> *




Moebius repopped the moonbus as it was originally issued but they also included new parts too. Surely that's the best of both worlds isn't it?


----------



## Rattrap (Feb 23, 1999)

Moebius did that with the Moonbus, and Round 2 will be doing the same with the Romulan Bird of Prey. I think it's a win-win scenario. Those of us wanting the most accurate kit possible have the parts we need, while folks wanting to rebuild the kit they remember can do that, too.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Well its not like Moebius really did much to the Moon Bus. They included two new flat windows. You could make those yourself. Oddly the junked up the nose with big blocks to hold the original Aurora wrap around windows as well. They did not correct the interior (wrong number of seats, wrong rear wall detail, etc.). Not that I really am concerned there. Its not a reissue either... its an all new mold cut from a panograph of the old kit.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'd rather see them make a new, _accurate _1/144 kit of the Orion like Stargazer's awesome, accurate resin kit.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

A lot depends on how the License reads. Repopping/Reissuing/Reverse-Engineering a kit with an extra spru is one thing, all new tooling to correct the original kit issues another. I wish Moebius could do whatever they want and give the 2001 kits a complete treatment as they did with the J2 & Flying Sub, but getting the rights to produce any kit from 2001 outside what has already been issued seems to be a problem...

.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I know it's been discussed before but has Moebius actually got the 2001 licence? I'm still unclear on it and even though I haven't got the moonbus yet there appears to be no 2001 writing on it....or am I wrong?


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

the design of the Moonbus is licensed by MGM. Moebius would have had to acquire a license to do the Moonbus. Whether it means they'll be able to do more 2001 kits remains a mystery until they make an announcement.

I just want the Aries and the EVA pod.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

This would be a question best asked to Moebius. Since there was no mention of the movie _2001: A Space Odyssey_, MGM or Sony Pictures (the current owner of MGM) anywhere on the box art or within the instruction sheet of the Moonbus repop.


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

Of course,many would hope for the Space Station,2001 Astronauts,accurate Orion,hopefully with full interior,as well as Discovery.


----------



## Magesblood (May 12, 2008)

you can't just make a model of the Enterprise and not put "Star Trek" on the box and get away with it. The design is what they call intellectual property and copyrighted.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Magesblood said:


> you can't just make a model of the Enterprise and not put "Star Trek" on the box and get away with it. The design is what they call intellectual property and copyrighted.




That's certainly true of a lot of things but maybe not all films etc are covered in the same way.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> I'd rather see them make a new, _accurate _1/144 kit of the Orion like Stargazer's awesome, accurate resin kit.




I'd like to see new kits of them all especially the Discovery and Aries lander (I'd like to see the clipper done in a larger scale though as the Aurora one was 1/144) but being realistic I suppose....I would imagine that a reissue of the Aurora Orion would be first if there ever was more 2001 stuff.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Magesblood said:


> you can't just make a model of the Enterprise and not put "Star Trek" on the box and get away with it. The design is what they call intellectual property and copyrighted.


No not always.

For example, the Disney Rocket to the Moon, which was kitted by Strombecker, was reissued by Glencoe with no reference to Disney and no licensing.

The Revell Disney Peter Pan Pirate Ship was subsequently reissued by Disney with no licensing or Peter Pan references.

Moebius' Moon Bus no longer says 2001 A Space Odyssey on the box or instructions and has no aparent licensing.

AMT Reissued the Paul Revere and the Raiders Coach/car as simply "The Coach" with no reference to the band.

Airfix reissued their 2001 Orion Clipper without direct movie licensing. The box art does not show the Pan Am logos either, although they are included in the kit.

To avoid James Bond licensing, they called their Goldfinger Astin Martin kit the "Spy Car" although later on licensing was obtained for the figure kits.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

And don't forget Aurora's flying saucer from _The Invaders_, which was re-released by Monogram with no mention of the TV series on the box art or instructions. IIRC, the rights to the TV show were in legal limbo at the time.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

SUNGOD said:


> Moebius repopped the moonbus as it was originally issued but they also included new parts too. Surely that's the best of both worlds isn't it?


*not my world, sungod..*
*I'm not a fan of "redo" kits, meaning extra parts, "accurate re-enjineering" etc..better fit sure, but I enjoy it for the nostalgia of the thing, so when a kit comes out almost exactly as it was , boxart and all, I love it.. as an example : the recent re-issue of the 1966 batmobile...( not actually a repop but you know what I mean).what I absolutely hate is when a kit is "re-scaled" or "upscaled" like those horrible Polar lights Captain america and spiderman kits...I would have really enjoyed and bought them if they came out in the original scale,and without retooling the faces or the nameplates...whoever came up with that idea, had no idea as to why aurora repops were selling and why they were popular.

Z
*


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Zathros said:


> *not my world, sungod..*
> *I'm not a fan of "redo" kits, meaning extra parts, "accurate re-enjineering" etc..better fit sure, but I enjoy it for the nostalgia of the thing, so when a kit comes out almost exactly as it was , boxart and all, I love it.. as an example : the recent re-issue of the 1966 batmobile...( not actually a repop but you know what I mean).what I absolutely hate is when a kit is "re-scaled" or "upscaled" like those horrible Polar lights Captain america and spiderman kits...I would have really enjoyed and bought them if they came out in the original scale,and without retooling the faces or the nameplates...whoever came up with that idea, had no idea as to why aurora repops were selling and why they were popular.
> 
> Z
> *




So I take it you won't be buying the moonbus then?


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

SUNGOD said:


> So I take it you won't be buying the moonbus then?


*Those I bought..I have 2 of them, as well as an original issue I built out of the box, and one original MIB 1969 issue ...the repops were close enough *:thumbsup:

*Z*


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

SUNGOD said:


> I'd like to see new kits of them all especially the Discovery and Aries lander (I'd like to see the clipper done in a larger scale though as the Aurora one was 1/144) but being realistic I suppose....I would imagine that a reissue of the Aurora Orion would be first if there ever was more 2001 stuff.


The Aurora one was smaller than 1/144, according to Stargazer Models' research. The Aurora kit is 15" long. Stargazer's "true 1/144 scale" kit is 19". it's a pretty good size, actually.


----------



## DocJam00 (May 18, 2010)

Well, not all franchises are jealously guarding their intellectual property rights is my guess. There is also a dividing line between commercial use, and fair use for such things as reviews. Apparently, there is also a loophole in which such things as student films of copyrighted stories are allowed, because there is no commercial purpose in them. So, one could make a model of something from a Star Trek film and show it to your friends, but if you try to sell it to your friends, you're in trouble. I'm not an expert, but this is what I've heard from friends who are, assuming I've got it right.


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

I would deffinately buy the 2001 space clipper if it is ever reissued again either by Moebius or Revell.I had the 1975 Aurora reissue when that came out as a kid,But it;s long gone.Any one know if the original molds still exist? Probably not


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Not all spaceship designs are necessarily protected by patent or copyright, or they have since expired. It could very well be that any and all references to those particular television shows or movies must be licensed, but the designs do not. This is why "2001" or "The Invaders", titles do not appear on either the boxes, instructions or decals of the kits to those particular craft, and they can be marketed without license fees. Patents and copyrights often expire after 27 years, if they are not renewed.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

They are also often purchased from the original copyright holders, such as the Irwin Allen liscenses now being held by Synthesis Entertainment.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Zathros said:


> *Those I bought..I have 2 of them, as well as an original issue I built out of the box, and one original MIB 1969 issue ...the repops were close enough *:thumbsup:
> 
> *Z*




I love a bit of nostalgia myself but surely if you want true nostalgia then buy an original. I know they might be expensive but they're still out there and I've saved up for a few originals because of nostalgia. I recently bought an old Aurora Pteranodon like the one I used to have as a kid. I'm keeping that unbuilt and exactly as it was. I wouldn't dream of building it but I've also bought a reissue to build. 

Even if there's no added parts the chances are that the reissue will still have many differences such as the box writing and instructions so it's not going to be exactly the same anyway.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> The Aurora one was smaller than 1/144, according to Stargazer Models' research. The Aurora kit is 15" long. Stargazer's "true 1/144 scale" kit is 19". it's a pretty good size, actually.



That could well be correct. I was going by the one I came across on a website which says 1/144.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

i would love a reissue of this kit, but a true 1/144 would be even better. And, although I appreciate Z's love of repops with no changes, I like improvements!


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

SUNGOD said:


> I love a bit of nostalgia myself but surely if you want true nostalgia then buy an original. I know they might be expensive but they're still out there and I've saved up for a few originals because of nostalgia. I recently bought an old Aurora Pteranodon like the one I used to have as a kid. I'm keeping that unbuilt and exactly as it was. I wouldn't dream of building it but I've also bought a reissue to build.
> 
> Even if there's no added parts the chances are that the reissue will still have many differences such as the box writing and instructions so it's not going to be exactly the same anyway.


*Just about every polar lights repop except the marvel kits were 99% dead on..thats good enough for me..

Z
*


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

If only PL would "supersize" the Aurora Spindrift...


----------



## Moebius (Mar 15, 2007)

Seaview said:


> If only PL would "supersize" the Aurora Spindrift...


I'd buy one!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> This would be a question best asked to Moebius. Since there was no mention of the movie _2001: A Space Odyssey_, MGM or Sony Pictures (the current owner of MGM) anywhere on the box art or within the instruction sheet of the Moonbus repop.


Actually, here's the minefield Moebius had to dance around, from what I recall.

2001 was made by MGM, but sold as part of the pre-1979 library of films to Turner. Turner, in turn, was bought by Time/Warner.

2001 is currently Warner Bros. property.

MGM has bounced back and forth between self-ownership and being owned. For a brief time they WERE owned by Sony (who own Columbia Pictures) but MGM pulled out of the deal and went solo again, but having a partnership with 20th Cent. Fox for home video distro. 

Currently MGM is on the block again, there is thought they will sell off the one major property they have left, the Bond films. 

Then of course you have the providence of who has the Pan Am Space Clipper (aka Orion) tooling. It was in Monogram's hands for a time, I'm sill confused if the Airfix release was duplicate tooling or original to them.

And then you have Kubrick's estate, which does have a say in licensing as that was in the original contract. 

Yeah, I think it's a damn miracle they got the Moonbus out.


----------



## Aurora-brat (Oct 23, 2002)

Steve H said:


> Then of course you have the providence of who has the Pan Am Space Clipper (aka Orion) tooling. It was in Monogram's hands for a time, I'm sill confused if the Airfix release was duplicate tooling or original to them.


The Airfix Orion was their own take on it and not a duplicate of the Aurora tooling. If you look at the two side by side, the differences become apparent. In my opinion, Aurora got the overall look of the ship better, but Airfix captured some of the detail better than Aurora.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Aurora-brat said:


> The Airfix Orion was their own take on it and not a duplicate of the Aurora tooling. If you look at the two side by side, the differences become apparent. In my opinion, Aurora got the overall look of the ship better, but Airfix captured some of the detail better than Aurora.



Thank you! Back in the day I had any number of chances to pick up the Airfix version and like a fool I just passed it by, thinking "naaa, it's just a rebox of the Aurora kit, I can find the Monogram repop anywhere, why bother". Man, put that in the 'if I knew then what I know now' catagory. 

I do wonder if the Airfix folks were able to consult with the actual model builders who worked on 2001 and that's why more details were accurate. Lots of difference between talking to the guy soon after filming wraps and dinking around 40-some years later trying to blow up film frames, adjusting for lens distortion and so on.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

The Airfix kit is not as bad as it is made out to be. It takes some minor work and detailing, but is a good, solid, model. You do need to resize the windows, angle the nose lip a bit, and add some detailing inside the engines. If you go to Hyperscale and to the Airfix group build page, you can search up an excellent build there by Alan Buttrick. I cant figure out how to directly link to HS pages myself. Despite the goofy current box art, the Airfix kit does have Pan Am markings as well.


----------



## Aurora-brat (Oct 23, 2002)

Try this:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/578046/message/1240520967/Orion-----------fini---


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Thats it! Thanks for the link. Shows what you can do with the pretty easy to get Airfix kit. Really most of the work there is painting. The reworking and detailing was relatively minor and fairly simple. His model is excellent.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Moebius said:


> I'd buy one!


 
Me, too! Although, I have to admit that if YOU were to come out with one...


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

djnick66 said:


> The Airfix kit is not as bad as it is made out to be. It takes some minor work and detailing, but is a good, solid, model. You do need to resize the windows, angle the nose lip a bit, and add some detailing inside the engines. If you go to Hyperscale and to the Airfix group build page, you can search up an excellent build there by Alan Buttrick. I cant figure out how to directly link to HS pages myself. Despite the goofy current box art, the Airfix kit does have Pan Am markings as well.



I've got 2 and yes it's not that bad a model.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Steve H said:


> . . . Then of course you have the providence of who has the Pan Am Space Clipper (aka Orion) tooling.


I assume you mean "provenance." And as for the Orion tooling, I thought it was one of the kits that supposedly . . . well, you know the story.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

I wonder if the panel lines could be done as recessed if it was ever reissued. I remember I had Vaders Tie fighter when I was a kid but when I bought it again many years later it had recessed panel lines. I compared the new one to the broken older one I had lying around and it was definitely the same kit otherwise.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

scotpens said:


> I assume you mean "provenance." And as for the Orion tooling, I thought it was one of the kits that supposedly . . . well, you know the story.


Yes, good catch. That's on me for not double checking and just worrying if I was spelling right, not if I had used the wrong word! 

But the old trainwreck thing. I had thought that had happened, or 'happened', before Monogram took hold of the tooling?

and ya know, given how solid and heavy molds are, I can't see how a train wreck would even SCRATCH them, just toss their heavy butts all hither and yon. 

I had heard that finding proper tool steel was troublesome for a time and companies would, whenever possible, mill out un-used patterns and grind new in, and selling 'dead' molds for that purpose was a revenue stream for some companies that were liquidating their toy divisions. Otherwise you'd think we would see all manner of old toys and models show up, right?

I would gladly give up a minor body part to suddenly get my hands on Remco's various toy gun molds.  Give me the tooling for Hasbro's GI Joe Adventure Team Helicopter or ATV and you can have a kidney!

damn, where DID all that stuff go?


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

Steve H said:


> Yes, good catch. That's on me for not double checking and just worrying if I was spelling right, not if I had used the wrong word!
> 
> But the old trainwreck thing. I had thought that had happened, or 'happened', before Monogram took hold of the tooling?
> 
> ...


*remember, back when *t*he adventure team stuff, and the days of Remco, there was no "adult collectable toy market"..once these things were sold, since they got thier money out of them, they really didn't care about the molds...they were placed in the rear end of the warehouse, in case there were more orders, and if not, basically forgotten..Remco was purchased by AHI, and from my research when I spoke to a rep Remco, shortly before they went out to AHI, all non essential molds were destroyed a few years earlier..

Z
*


----------

