# Moebius Test Shots



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

Most of the images, that were uploaded to MySpace, have been made available at the Moebius website on the Model Kit News page. 

Enjoy!


----------



## beck (Oct 22, 2003)

very cool ! thanks KJ . 
hb


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

Nicely done (both test shots and page)


("don't be a ninny?!")


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The robot in the chariot is the only thing I'm disappointed in. It replicates the poor rendering of the legs as in the Aurora and PL kits. That portion needs to be re-engineered to more closely resemble the actual prop, IMHO.


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

Steve244 said:


> ("don't be a ninny?!")


yeah, I know... I never said I was great at writing copy.  What do you want it to say? I'll make it happen.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Thanks KJ. That's an excellent site! Seeing all these wonderful kits makes me realise just how lucky we are to have enthusiastic people like Frank and Scott among us. It looks like we are heading towards a renaissance of Aurora style models and building for years to come. I'll definitely be buying and building eveything they put out, and I'm going to offload all my modern kits to make room for the stuff I really want to build.
From the bottom of my heart guys, THANK YOU !!!:thumbsup:
Chris.


----------



## Captain Han Solo (Apr 5, 2002)

AWESOME!!!

Thanks for posting!!!


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

I'll ask again. How did the Robot get into the Chariot? When in, where is his lower half stored?


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

Admiral Nelson said:


> I'll ask again. How did the Robot get into the Chariot?


Answer: He was hitch hiking !
Mcdee


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> The robot in the chariot is the only thing I'm disappointed in. It replicates the poor rendering of the legs as in the Aurora and PL kits. That portion needs to be re-engineered to more closely resemble the actual prop, IMHO.


Actually, the legs aren't as far off as the "torso" section, which is roughly the correct height but too small in diameter/width (another problem in common with the Aurora/PL kits) which gives it the appearance of being too squared off:


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

Zombie_61 said:


> Actually, the legs aren't as far off as the "torso" section, which is roughly the correct height but too small in diameter/width (another problem in common with the Aurora/PL kits) which gives it the appearance of being too squared off:












I used your image to check the differences. I superimposed the kit B9 over the photograph and found the width difference to be minimal. I didn't stretch the images at all. The difference I see more is in the height of the torso "barrel" of the kit robot. The additional height of the torso gives the illusion it is narrower than it really is..


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Also, the torso's shoulder curve is wrong, in the same way as the Aurora version. Aurora made the shoulder curve symmetric with the waist curve, which is much more rounded.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

kit-junkie said:


> I used your image to check the differences. I superimposed the kit B9 over the photograph and found the width difference to be minimal. I didn't stretch the images at all. The difference I see more is in the height of the torso "barrel" of the kit robot. The additional height of the torso gives the illusion it is narrower than it really is..


After seeing the photo you posted, I believe you're correct. Also, if the legs were slightly less tapered from bottom to top (i.e., were a bit narrower at the top) it would be an improvement.



toyroy said:


> Also, the torso's shoulder curve is wrong, in the same way as the Aurora version. Aurora made the shoulder curve symmetric with the waist curve, which is much more rounded.


I agree with this as well, but didn't quite know how to articulate it in a way that would make sense.


----------



## gaetan (Apr 6, 2005)

Hello guys

Not only the torso top and bottom curves are not the same but the cylindrical part should be taper. A bit like a human torso it is wider at the shoulder and narrower at the waist. I have pics to prove it, in the lost in space handbook. Also the neck is taper , bigger going down... And the head globe seems too tall or thick as the prop head seems flatter...


That is all in the pictures of the prop

Gaétan


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

How important is this, really? 

Personally, I would have never given the B9 (or any other kit's) discrepancies a thought had it not been brought up. It doesn't matter to me, as long as it's close enough for me to know it's B9.


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Given that one is 3 inches tall and the other is about 7 feet, I'm not complaining! 

Steve


----------



## gaetan (Apr 6, 2005)

Important or not , like it or not, it is like that, simple fact.... I guess we will really see how it looks in a couple of months, when we get the kit in hands. Sometimes a camera lense doesn't render the truth dimension and it can distort an object that small. So we will see

Gaétan


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

Well, B9 is an historical figure, isn't he. It's not like he was a fictional character or anything. I mean, a fact is a fact.


----------



## gaetan (Apr 6, 2005)

Oupss! I am sorry if it looks that I offended you . I saw the differences from the original 1/1 B-9 and I just pointed them......

No offences meant,

Gaétan


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

No offense was taken.  I'm just silly sometimes. Don't mind me. 

I build for fun more than accuracy.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

gaetan said:


> ...the cylindrical part should be taper. A bit like a human torso it is wider at the shoulder and narrower at the waist. I have pics to prove it, in the lost in space handbook...


Please bring on your proof. I have always percieved Robot's torso as cylindrical.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

*robot inaccuracies*

Any inaccuracies will take me no time at all to correct given the size of this little guy. I love all the future releases and will be picking them all up. All in all you guys are doing a wonderful job bringing these great kits to market. I mean c'mon... the space pod? THE SPACE POD?? How frigging awesome is that? And what other company would have the stones to even put this out?
I'm hoping one day they will put out accurate models of Anderson's UFO and Space 1999 kits! And all the hardware from 2001! If that ever happens I'm flying down to Florida and treating frank to the biggest steak dinner he's ever seen! No joke!
So bring on the SHADO Interceptor and I'll start looking up the best steak houses in your area Frank!:thumbsup:
James Webb


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

Looks pretty close to me! No complaints at all here LOL. I'm amazed that they can get as close as they do to perfection...


----------



## Lee Staton (May 13, 2000)

And hey, if the worst thing we can say about this awesome kit is that the robot is a little bit off, then we're awfully fortunate modelers--aren't we? I mean sure, there will probably be an after market robot upgrade. But it's a subtle difference, and you'll hardly see it through the windows.

Frank is making me wish I was 13 again. I'm buying these now, but I would have been in heaven to have them in my paws back then!

Lee


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I wouldn't have been able to afford these when I was 13! :lol:


----------



## gaetan (Apr 6, 2005)

Hello guys

Ooookay!!! Now everybody gets the guns and knifes down  . I need to clear the misconception right now I am absolutely not here to bash the work of Frank .... You can ask my wife, in a lot of conversations over the last six month it's :woohoo: Frank from Moebius will do that and that ...... I even uploaded his photo from his presence at a fall show to keep it with the people I admire ... 

Like many of you, I have been wanting a Chariot and a Pod models for 40 years. I have collected some documentation since I wanted to make dioramas from the Lunar Model releases from the late eighties , early nineties. So i ordered the whole 1/35 combo... Inside a year, my chariot clear part started to yellow . At some times since, I had considered making a plaster mold of the clear part to re-vacform one but I never went very far and I took back the boxes to the cupboard. 


Since Frank announced the Lis kits I am floating on a cloud ( no dope ,no boose, I assure you ) I had seen the differences , but I chose to shut up... It shoud have remained that way. But when the guys pointed to some of the things I had seen , I told myself ; why not say it now , if the tooling is not already done there could be time for improvements. It is only my opinion and the way I see it...

Do I still want it? *yes* *yes* *yes*...... Will I want to try to make changes on my models when I receive it .... Surely, but it engages only me......

So I hope the case is close on that matter :thumbsup:

PS two more things; 

First English is not my maternal language as I am a French Canadian, I learned it in reading, music,TV, etc... So I hope that If I word my writings too strongly at times or employ the wrong term you will excuse me....

Second I said I had pictures to prove my saying . Some are in the Lost in Space handbook by Paul Monroe on the following pages: 102, 103, 133and144. There is another one in John Peel LIS files vol one page 24 . There are even 3 view scale drawings of the robot and other LIS material in The alpha Control Reference Manual from Bill Anchors jr 


Since I don't really know how to post pictures here, If you PM me your email address , I can scan the ''offending'' pictures and send it to you, and someone can post it if wanted , needed or whatever.....

Gaétan


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

For 1/24th scale,it's accurate enough and who would notice the small difference if it's 3 inches tall.If you want to complain,complain about the missing Robinsons figures.Just kidding.


----------



## brineb (Jun 12, 2007)

I really enjoyed those shots, thanks for posting them!!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Test shots are for finding problems and correcting them. Now's the time to point out the good and the bad. I think the rest of the kit is awesome. 

My only problem is with the similarity to the Aurora/PL robot. That model has always driven me crazy to just look at due to its misproportions.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

gaetan said:


> ...the cylindrical part should be taper. A bit like a human torso it is wider at the shoulder and narrower at the waist...


Thanks Gaetan, for sending the plans and photos. I also checked out the original Fox studio B-9 prop construction drawings here:

http://www.berkeleyrobotproject.com/

and read an online account of building a full-scale B-9 torso. You're right, Gaetan, it's tapered! :thumbsup:


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ...the Aurora/PL robot...has always driven me crazy to just look at due to its misproportions.


I first bought the Aurora Robot as a kid in the '60s. I was so exasperated with it, it became the subject of my first kitbash. I was so young, I remember using _scissors_ to cut the plastic to flatten out the shoulder curve, and cut the arms, so the claws would be in the retracted position. :freak:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> My only problem is with the similarity to the Aurora/PL robot. That model has always driven me crazy to just look at due to its misproportions.





toyroy said:


> I first bought the Aurora Robot as a kid in the '60s. I was so exasperated with it, it became the subject of my first kitbash. I was so young, I remember using _scissors_ to cut the plastic to flatten out the shoulder curve, and cut the arms, so the claws would be in the retracted position. :freak:


Maybe someday Moebius will produce a proportionally accurate B9 Robot kit...

*koff**hint**koff*


----------



## RogueJ (Oct 29, 2000)

You know...I sometimes have to wonder why some manufacturers even bother producing these kits for us. We're never happy. If it's this kit...it's "why didn't you make this kit?" If it's this scale...some say "Hey! why didn't you make it this scale instead?" Or "Wow I never thought I'd see this kit. What a great kit,but this is wrong and that is just not quite the right diameter". I could understand these things being said if these kits came out looking more like the toy kits the Japanese produced in the 60's and 70's. Don't get me wrong I would prefer the kits to be as accurate as possible, but come on. Would rather not have these kits at all? I'm probably gonna get blasted for saying this. 

I'm just happy to have these kits coming my way. Granted if a kit is suppose to be ...oh lets say the Seaview and it ends up looking more like skylab I just won't buy it. I sure that won't be the case, but I hope you get my jist.

I'm just thinking it must be a little frustrating putting hard work in developing a kit the best you can only to see it picked apart even before it's produced.

Just my 2 cents.
Rogue

and let the flames begin.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

No flames from me, Rogue. You're absolutely right, and I bet you have a lot of supporters here.:thumbsup:
Chris.


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

In all honesty Rogue... I couldn't agree with you any more... I'm so jazzed about the fact that all these cool Styrene kits are being made that I couldn't care less about 5 rivets missing (from the underside of who gives a sh*t) Moebius and Monarch are carrying on supplying us with our fix of kits... if something isn't quite right in my opinion, as a modeler, I can probably put those finishing touches on myself.... Getting a new kit, tearing off the cello and getting a whiff of that styrene and cardboard combo...and then getting busy...is where it's at for me!:thumbsup:
Mcdee


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

If products are supposed to be replicas of actual objects, then they are, at the very least, making themselves the subject of critiques regarding their accuracy.

Beggars can't be choosers--and we're all begging--but we've seen what Moebius and Monarch and Polar Lights and other companies and individuals are capable of in terms of high degrees of accuracy. It is therefore more than fair to mention, especially in the "test shot" phase, what is not quite right in the hopes that corrections may be made.

Sure, we can take what we're given, spend money and time correcting what's wrong but how many of us want to spend an inordinate amount of time doing that?

The degree of accuracy that is acceptable in the finished product is subjective, of course. However, the closer to 100% accurate a model kit achieves, the fewer folks there will be who are likely to be disappointed in it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

toyroy said:


> I first bought the Aurora Robot as a kid in the '60s. I was so exasperated with it, it became the subject of my first kitbash. I was so young, I remember using _scissors_ to cut the plastic to flatten out the shoulder curve, and cut the arms, so the claws would be in the retracted position. :freak:


You had that good of an eye as to be able to spot that difference as a kid? Impressive! :thumbsup:

I've been working on the JL B9 to correct its proportions and it's not that easy a thing to do. The worst problem with it, as with the larger model kit, is the "feet" being angled wrong. (In fact, I'm not even going to try fixing that on the tiny robot.) 

It all makes you wonder why they went to all the trouble to make the kit inaccurately when the could have just as easily made it accurately, IMHO.


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

RogueJ said:


> You know...I sometimes have to wonder why some manufacturers even bother producing these kits for us. We're never happy. <snip> I'm just thinking it must be a little frustrating putting hard work in developing a kit the best you can only to see it picked apart even before it's produced.


I think it's a bit unfair to say we're never satified when the mainstream hobby manufacturers are still struggling to re-invent themselves while figuring out that their actual customers are not little kids anymore. I think Mobius has obviously gotten that mostly right from the get-go. 

No kid is going to buy a hundred dollar Seaview and Mobius has to be aware that their adult customers are going to be discriminating. Based on what I see with the Seaview test shots (as well as others), the homework is being done. It remains to be seen if they're in the same ballpark as, say, Finemolds, but based on what I see so far, I trust that they're making kits with me (the adult sci-fi genre modeler) in mind. It's all good, even if a couple details might miss the mark.

John O.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Good points!

And I'm not saying that I won't buy the Chariot because the robot figure is inaccurate. I'm just saying it'd be nice to have a more accurate robot included.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

RogueJ said:


> You know...I sometimes have to wonder why some manufacturers even bother producing these kits for us. We're never happy...I'm just thinking it must be a little frustrating putting hard work in developing a kit the best you can only to see it picked apart even before it's produced...


I agree. I'm very appreciative of Moebius, and all the other hobby producers out there. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

RogueJ said:


> I'm just thinking it must be a little frustrating putting hard work in developing a kit the best you can only to see it picked apart even before it's produced.


I think there is a basic misunderstanding here. The _purpose _of a test shot is to find faults so that they may be corrected.

For example, I noticed that the nose was wrong on the Invisible Man. Now, I'll admit that they may have already noticed that but then maybe they hadn't. Isn't it a good idea to mention it? Or should I just grovel at their feet and turn a blind eye in a misdirected effort to be nice to them. 

Being critical and observant in an agreeable way is the greatest kindness to them, IMHO. If they don't want things pointed out, I'm sure they'd keep their test shots to themselves.:thumbsup:


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> You had that good of an eye as to be able to spot that difference as a kid?....


I "bonded" to the Robot I saw on TV. And, I think, most of us were discriminating, even as kids. What we each liked most about things, as well as what bothered us most, varied with our individual tastes, of course.


PerfesserCoffee said:


> It all makes you wonder why they went to all the trouble to make the kit inaccurately when the could have just as easily made it accurately, IMHO.


I think we all know at least some of the reasons why this sort of thing happens: the studio may have provided incomplete or confusing prototype information; errors may have been made in cutting the dies, etc. I don't think Aurora intended to make a crappy Robot, but once the production costs were paid, they needed to see a return, in order to pay for the next new kit.

Unfortunately, it never made sense to them to re-invest in their product after its initial sales, to improve its quality. I think it is _our_ job, as potential customers, to sell producers on the desirability of making things right in the first place, and continuing to improve the quality of their existing product.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

toyroy said:


> I think we all know at least some of the reasons why this sort of thing happens: the studio may have provided incomplete or confusing prototype information; errors may have been made in cutting the dies, etc.


You are correct, sir! :thumbsup:

I only wonder what happened in this case because I've never come across any sketches or blueprints that show deviations similar to the Aurora version of the robot. It seems to me that any info they would have rec'd would have been more correct than what they came up with.

Take another case as a counter-example: the few inaccuracies in the PL 1/350th 1701A. We got to see and discuss the development of this kit as it happened. It got so close in the end that, for most folks (and, except for the impulse engine and the hangar doors, that includes me) wouldn't change the model structurally. 

I'd call that model a definite winner. It's not 100% but it's so darned close that no one can really raise a big stink and I think 99% of folks realize that. Most of those that _do_ bring up inaccuracies are usually mentioning it in their pursuit of correcting those minor deficiencies and not whining at all.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ...I only wonder what happened in (the Robots) case because I've never come across any sketches or blueprints that show deviations similar to the Aurora version of the robot. It seems to me that any info they would have rec'd would have been more correct than what they came up with...


Did Aurora make their tooling from original sculpts? If so, I think it would be _very_ enlightening to see the one for the Robot kit.


----------



## Dar (Apr 20, 2007)

WOW.All those models are looking great. Im not really into figures(I did get the glow Jeklly)but that invisible man looks very cool and now it seems like I will have to purchase it. It would look so great on an end table for halloween. Excellent job Moebius.:thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I suspect Aurora in the 60s didn't care that much about total accuracy, and didn't think WE cared that much. For many sci fi subjects, I'm willing to bet they just eyeballed pictures of the subject when they made the masters, and as long as the finished item "kinda looked like the thing on TV" it was okay.


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

John P said:


> I suspect Aurora in the 60s didn't care that much about total accuracy, and didn't think WE cared that much. For many sci fi subjects, I'm willing to bet they just eyeballed pictures of the subject when they made the masters, and as long as the finished item "kinda looked like the thing on TV" it was okay.


...AND they were making them _for_ ...drum roll please ...KIDS! Period! Most of the Aurora kits were intended as activity purchases for teenagers at the oldest. We're lucky they were as good as they were, 'cuz a lot of kits were merely toys.

John O.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Strange that they managed to do such an outstanding job on so many subjects yet crapped totally out on the LIS robot. 

Other models perhaps weren't totally accurate, yet the LIS robot was just about totally INaccurate.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Oh, I dunno. The Seaview was too short and the fins were wrong; the 2001 Moon Bus wasn't proportioned right; the Flying Sub is all wrong, the 2001 Orion is juuuust a little off...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Oh, I dunno. The Seaview was too short and the fins were wrong


BUT it IS based on an actual model used in the show.



> . . . the 2001 Moon Bus wasn't proportioned right


I've heard that it was close to dead on by some folks very familiar with the design.




> the Flying Sub is all wrong


I wouldn't know on that one but from my inexpert examination of it, it looks to be proportioned fairly close. Nothing about it "jars" my senses as the robot does.



> the 2001 Orion is juuuust a little off...


The Airfix sucks but the Aurora version is said to be very close to the correct shape. There may be some detailing that is different. I'm not a huge expert on that one by any means.


----------



## gaetan (Apr 6, 2005)

Hello guys

Don't know if the flying sub shape was wrong , but the parts fit was ultra wrong as for the front half of Spindrift on the angled window part...... That twelve years old kid got it assembled together with a lot of glue but the fit is Baaaad!!!!......

Gaétan


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> BUT it IS based on an actual model used in the show. ....I've heard that it was close to dead on by some folks very familiar with the design. ....I wouldn't know on that one but from my inexpert examination of it, it looks to be proportioned fairly close. Nothing about it "jars" my senses as the robot does. ....The Airfix sucks but the Aurora version is said to be very close to the correct shape. There may be some detailing that is different. I'm not a huge expert on that one by any means.


I think what you're saying actually supports the idea that knowledge of a subject might be proportional to your level of descrimination with a model's accuracy. The Robot you know a lot about, thus flaws "jar" you; the others you're less familiar with and they don't bother as much because the errors are transparent.

When I first got an Aurora PL re-pop LIS Robot in my hands as an adult, I was glad to have it. However, something didn't seem right, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Same thing with the Aurora PL re-pop Seaview (it's a mess BTW). After a lot of time spent looking over screen shots, the problems were clear - as I made corrections, even more flaws became apparent. If I was a kid, I'm sure I wouldn't have been as picky as this - mostly it's proportional errors that make me nuts: http://picasaweb.google.com/roadbox128/ModelChopChannel

Maybe this is why I actually finish so few kits, because I try to fix too much!

John O.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John O said:


> I think what you're saying actually supports the idea that knowledge of a subject might be proportional to your level of discrimination with a model's accuracy. The Robot you know a lot about, thus flaws "jar" you; the others you're less familiar with and they don't bother as much because the errors are transparent.


Definitely a factor!


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

John O said:


> ...If I was a kid, I'm sure I wouldn't have been as picky as this...


I don't think I'm any pickier now, than as a kid. At the time, as now, my clear priorities for Lost in Space models were:

-The Jupiter 2,
-The Robot,
-The Chariot.

So, after the disappointment and frustration with Aurora's Robot, I didn't even _consider_ buying the Chariot(in their Cyclops kit).

Having said that, I'm very much looking forward to Moebius's Chariot kit! Even if I pulverize the Robot parts with a sledge hammer, for causing me an Aurora flashback...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

toyroy said:


> . . . Even if I pulverize the Robot parts with a sledge hammer, for causing me an Aurora flashback.


:roll:


----------



## BatToys (Feb 4, 2002)

The most horrible Aurora inaccuracy was the Batmobile. Car was made too stubby instead of sleek. Too small a scale. Canopies wrong angle and shape. Bat-Wheel hubs all wrong. They should have just recast the Revell Lincoln Futura to get the proportions right. Aurora wrongly believed kids did not care about accuracy.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

BatToys said:


> The most horrible Aurora inaccuracy was the Batmobile. Car was made too stubby instead of sleek. Too small a scale. Canopies wrong angle and shape. Bat-Wheel hubs all wrong. They should have just recast the Revell Lincoln Futura to get the proportions right. *Aurora wrongly believed kids did not care about accuracy.*


Which is why the Aurora Batmobile sold so poorly?


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

:jest:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'm pretty sure they were right - I didn't care about accuracy then.

NOW, I care about accuracy.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Hopefully, today's kitmakers care likewise.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Zorro said:


> Which is why the Aurora Batmobile sold so poorly?...


How many Batmobile kits were there to choose from, at the time?


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

toyroy said:


> How many Batmobile kits were there to choose from, at the time?


One. And it was a more accurate representation than any Batmobile die-cast, toy, slot-car, or soap-on-a-rope on the market at that time. I was 9 years-old and I had absolutely _no_ complaints about the accuracy of the Aurora Batmobile, nor any notion that it was somehow "wrong" for that matter - so I for one certainly didn't fit the hypothetical accuracy-obsessed grade-school demographic BatToys refers to.


----------



## Argonaut (Feb 11, 2007)

mmm...I didn't like the Batmobile kit after I got it as a birthday present
so I begged my Mother for the Corgi die cast!!


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Argonaut said:


> mmm...I didn't like the Batmobile kit after I got it as a birthday present
> so I begged my Mother for the Corgi die cast!!


Which is even less accurate. I was quite happy to have both!


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

The only Batmobile kit I got came through a Burry's cookie promotion, and it was _supposed_ to be exclusive. I have no idea who made it.


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

Hey Toyroy, seems like I remember reading that the "Burrys cookie kit" was made by Aurora.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

otto said:


> Hey Toyroy, seems like I remember reading that the "Burrys cookie kit" was made by Aurora.


It was. The promotional signs go for mucho dinero.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

That's it. I wonder what was exclusive about it?

As an aside, I also remember a Batman periscope.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

toyroy said:


> That's it. I wonder what was exclusive about it?
> 
> As an aside, I also remember a Batman periscope.


At the height of "Bat-Mania", pretty much _anything_ would sell if it had the name _Batman _attached to it.





































And now, Kids, back to our regularly scheduled Moebius programming ....


----------



## xsavoie (Jun 29, 1999)

Speaking of Batmobiles,will the Mattel release of the 1/18th scale version be out soon.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It's orderable from amazon--supposed to ship March 4. I put my order in...funny that all the fanfare about this has disappeared and now it appears poised to sneak onto store shelves under the radar...


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

Could that be so that children, instead of (just) collectors and horders, get to have a few?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Yeah! I haven't found ANY 1/64th Batmobiles on the shelves.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

kit-junkie said:


> Could that be so that children, instead of (just) collectors and horders, get to have a few?


Yeah, I liked antique cars when I was a kid. Model Ts...cool!


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

jbond said:


> ...funny that all the fanfare about this has disappeared and now it appears poised to sneak onto store shelves under the radar...


I think the blame for that rests solely with Mattel, which for some reason has botched this release. The models were announced, then dates were changed and I think they also cut one of the planned versions. It's almost as if they had A-Corp handle the marketing !


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

jbond said:


> It's orderable from amazon--supposed to ship March 4. I put my order in...funny that all the fanfare about this has disappeared and now it appears poised to sneak onto store shelves under the radar...


Looks like they're only offering the basic model. Anybody know of a dependable on-line retailer where one can pre-order the primo-editions?


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Mr. Wabac said:


> ...I think they also cut one of the planned(Batmobile) versions...


Which one? There will be three 1/18 versions, and at least two 1/64 versions.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

I mentioned in another thread that I saw 1:18 and 1:32nd Batmobiles at Toy Fair Monday. Didn't ask, but nothing sufggested there were multiple versions.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

ChrisW said:


> I mentioned in another thread that I saw 1:18 and 1:32nd Batmobiles at Toy Fair Monday. Didn't ask, but nothing sufggested there were multiple versions.


I went ahead and ordered the basic 1:18 version from Amazon - just to cover my bases. Hopefully some GK person out there will come up with good Adam West and Burt Ward figures to go with.


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

toyroy said:


> Which one? There will be three 1/18 versions, and at least two 1/64 versions.


There was also suppose to be a 1/43 scale version but that was dropped in favor of a 1/50th scale car.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

I'm not a big fan of diecast, so I'm hoping they'll eventually produce a 1/24 or 1/25 scale styrene kit. I think I had the Aurora kit as a kid; I wouldn't mind seeing it reissued 'cuz I can't afford the going rate on Evilbay.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Zombie_61 said:


> I'm not a big fan of diecast, so I'm hoping they'll eventually produce a 1/24 or 1/25 scale styrene kit.



Kinda unlikely since they only make die cast cars, and only have the license to make die cast Batmobiles.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Zombie_61 said:


> I'm not a big fan of diecast, so I'm hoping they'll eventually produce a 1/24 or 1/25 scale styrene kit.





John P said:


> Kinda unlikely since they only make die cast cars, and only have the license to make die cast Batmobiles.


Okay, I hope _someone_ eventually produces a 1/24 or 1/25 scale styrene kit.


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

Zombie_61 said:


> Okay, I hope _someone_ eventually produces a 1/24 or 1/25 scale styrene kit.


Yeah, me too. I have a PL kit in my collection, but the TV version would be wonderful. Why is it there hasn't been a styrene kit, anyway?


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

kit-junkie said:


> Yeah, me too. I have a PL kit in my collection, but the TV version would be wonderful. Why is it there hasn't been a styrene kit, anyway?


Because nobody has been able to work out the rights to reproduce that car in any medium for like, a quarter century. The fact that Mattel was finally able to pull it off is something of a miracle.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Next question: does the original Aurora Batmobile tooling still exist, and, if so, who's got it?


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

If it exists Revell Monogram has it. They may very well have it and not even know. They claimed many years ago that the creature mold was gone. Then a few years later it turned up. IE They looked for it or stumbled accross it while looking for something else. LOL


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

otto said:


> If it exists Revell Monogram...may very well have it and not even know...


Maybe now is a good time to find it, methinks.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Speaking of old tooling, perhaps now would also be a good time to lose the Robot molds. _Forever_. Then, all-new tooling could be created to fill the unquenchable demand for model kits of the Robot. And a new day will dawn, for those who stand long...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I know for a fact the Aurora molds still exist, because someone at Revell/Monogram told us so here a few years ago. They'd done a test shot to see if the molds were still okay, and they were, but they still couldn't get the licensing.


----------



## toyroy (Jul 17, 2005)

Evidently, licensing is possible now. Maybe someone should send Revell/Monogram a Hot Wheels Batmobile, with the date circled in red?


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

toyroy said:


> Evidently, licensing is possible now. Maybe someone should send Revell/Monogram a Hot Wheels Batmobile, with the date circled in red?


I would think the various Hot Wheels versions would take a lot of steam out of _any_ styrene '66 Batmobile kit that would be issued now. Add to that, that compared to the Mattel, the Aurora Batmobile _is_ wildly inaccurate and soft on detail. Us Aurora nostalgia guys would kill to have one - but only if re-issued with the original box-art. R/M did quite poorly on their various Aurora repops a few years ago as they attempted to jump on the Polar Lights bandwagon. Even if they could get the rights, I don't think they would even consider an Aurora Batmobile repop. It wouldn't pay for itself.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm perfectly happy to have that great big diecast...I've got plenty of models to build, I loved my 1/43 Corgi Batmobile as a kid and I can't wait to finally have the Hot Wheels version...


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

Last that I knew Mattel had the US master licesnse for everything related to Batman.
Far as I am aware that includes model kits, as Warner / DC considers model kits to be TOYS! 
A master license is an exclusive license for the entire product category.
Last I knew Warner had NO interest what ever in discussing Batman licensing opportunities for model kits with anyone.

That was back in 2004, things could have changed since then, but I sincerly doubt it because Mattel is just getting their big Batmobiles to market. I'd wager that they still have the Batman license all locked up

Once Matell has made all the Batman stuff that they can make a buck on, they may let the license lapse, until then I'll bet that nobody else in the US gets a license in the toy catagories.

Dave


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Dave Metzner said:


> Last that I knew Mattel had the US master licesnse for everything related to Batman.
> Far as I am aware that includes model kits, as Warner / DC considers model kits to be TOYS!
> A master license is an exclusive license for the entire product category.
> Last I knew Warner had NO interest what ever in discussing Batman licensing opportunities for model kits with anyone.
> ...


Dave - from what you know about the license with Mattel, would that cover pretty much _any_ kind of _Batman_ _TV-Series_ related toy as well? I mean, could they issue Adam West and Burt Ward action figures for instance? Or a special-issue Julie Newmar as Catwoman Barbie? It's just curious to me that they finally cracked the Barris Batmobile but that everything else related to that show would be left alone.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Looks like Amazon has raised the price on the 1:18 from $29.99 to $34.99 in the past couple of days.


----------



## Dave Metzner (Jan 1, 1970)

I don't have any idea if Mattel would do anything Batman related with Barbie.
I'm pretty sure that the master toy license would cover dolls as well as die cast cars.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Dave Metzner said:


> I don't have any idea if Mattel would do anything Batman related with Barbie.
> I'm pretty sure that the master toy license would cover dolls as well as die cast cars.


They did these a couple of years back. My daughter has all 4 figures proudly displayed with her other Super-heroine stuff.



















Doing a little web search, it appears they did a Limited Edition "Classic" Catwoman as well.


----------

