# Companion thread: What was Aurora's WORSE kit?



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Don't be shy! But try to go beyond personal taste as well. 
WHY was a kit the worse kit? Subject? Engineering? Timing? Packaging?
There are literally HUNDREDS of choices!


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Oy, CeeDub!

Okay, just because YOU asked, I'll nominate two kits.

One is the "Aston-Martin Super Spy Car", which was just their DB4 - not the DB 5 seen in _Goldfinger_ (1964) - with the ejector seat (that I could never get to clear the roof opening) and other movie features added. The other is Dr. Jeckyll As Mr. Hyde, because the left hand never quite catches the throat, the inside of the mouth was left hollow, and the overall details of the head were soft. The likeness is spot-on to the makeup Boris Karloff wore in _Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_ (1953), but otherwise this was not Larry Ehling's best sculpt.


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

I don't know if it was the 'worst' model but King Kong to me as a kid was the toughest to glue together...molded in chocolate brown, the glue I used seemed to melt the plastic to a soft gooey mess and fitting the front half and back half together was tricky and the result was just this side of a glue bomb (maybe the brown pigment softened the plastic).....of course I also had a rough time with the Creatures head and torso, and glueing the Bride of Frankenstein together introduced me to needing elastics and lots of 'em...
...Like most kids at the time I basicly used the instructions as a drop cloth for building and painting on (to save Moms table from all that Humbrol enamil) perhaps I should have read them every once in a while....it would have helped when I assembled the Addams Family Haunted House together and then realising I had to get the Ghosts in there somehow....???
....Hmmm maybe the kits weren't that bad after all....maybe it was the builder
Mcdee


----------



## buzzconroy (Jun 28, 2002)

Dutch Boy, nuff said,,,,,,,Yawn!

Randy


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

I've mentioned my dislike of "Dr. Jekyll as..." many times on these boards. 
But there are a series of kits that I've never even seen, let alone build, that I heap my rancor upon... the "Scene Machines" from the early 1970s. After the incredible art Kunstler did for the 1/32nd hot rods in the 60s, the box art for these kits is just depressing. And the car designs themselves are poor "wanna-be"s compared to the way cooler Monogram and AMT offerings from that time period. did anyone on the boards ever build/acquire these kits, and were the parts still on the trees to build them as they first appeared in the 60s?


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Mark McGovern said:


> Oy, CeeDub!
> 
> Okay, just because YOU asked, I'll nominate two kits.
> 
> One is the "Aston-Martin Super Spy Car", which was just their DB4 - not the DB 5 seen in _Goldfinger_ (1964) - with the ejector seat (that I could never get to clear the roof opening) and other movie features added. The other is Dr. Jeckyll As Mr. Hyde, because the left hand never quite catches the throat, the inside of the mouth was left hollow, and the overall details of the head were soft. The likeness is spot-on to the makeup Boris Karloff wore in _Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_ (1953), but otherwise this was not Larry Ehling's best sculpt.




There was no DB 5 at the time.The studio got a late model DB 4 to turn into the James Bond Car.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

buzzconroy said:


> Dutch Boy, nuff said,,,,,,,Yawn!
> 
> Randy


So thats two votes for Dutch Boy!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I seem to recall their 1/48 Fw-190 looked SORT of like an Fw-190. Sort of.


----------



## rat salad (Oct 18, 2004)

I have to agree with Dr. Jekyll/Mr Hyde. It has to be one of the weakest Aurora figure kits. That arm configuration is just too funky looking. He's the only Aurora monster kit that I haven't built (and I own 2 of them).


----------



## PF Flyer (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm going to throw in a vote for the Batmobile here. Although it was apparently a runaway success in sales, it was small, semi-accurate, and darn near impossible for a 10-year-old to get right. Even the re-pop requires (at least for me) some substantial reworking of the dash/steering wheel to make it seem as if Batman was driving the car. And I never did understand the chrome seats.


----------



## frankenstyrene (Oct 5, 2006)

Worst? Not sure if it's the worst but The Most Disappointing and Biggest Letdown: the original Wolf Man. Not badly done for what it is, which is just a generic werewolf on steroids that's not even TRYING to identifiably resemble any known motion picture Wolf Man. It's sort of got Chaney's wolf-fro but that's about it. Aurora would have been better off at the start selling it as "The Werewolf" with the later matching generic boxart. They wouldn't have gotten as many complaints that way, at least. 

I'd really love to know how that thing got greenlit by the honchos at Aurora and Universal. 

Jekyll - tho weak - is far superior, imo.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Wolfman


----------



## bqeman (Apr 14, 2009)

I agree that both Wolfman and Dr Jeckyl were big disappointments. I have to say that King Kong was also very qweak - Kong's face is bad and Ann Darrow is too big


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

The Wolfman may have been a big disappointment because it didn't look like any recognizable film wolfman, or even worse, it certainly didn't look like the box art! 

But as far as a sculpt itself is concerned, Dr. Jekyll & Mr Hyde has to take the prize hands down. The main offending aspects? The mouth (er ... the hole), the ears (there's no definition to them whatsoever; they're just flat semi-circular objects that could substitute for Mickey Mouse ears), and the arm (it looks like Dr Jekyll, besides taking the transforming potion, may also have ingested some Thalidomide in utero). — Terrible.

And the base? How much real thought went into that? None.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

The WORST has to be the Yamato. Its hideously bad. Who ever designed the kit must have been an idiot. They worked from a left and right photo of the real ship from two different points in her service life. the Yamato was very heavily modified from her pre war sea trials to her 1945 appearance, but Aurora made the kit asymetrical with more turrets on one side than the other. It just looks rediculous. If the real ship were built this way it would have tipped over.


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

Jekyll as Hyde for the reasons already stated.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

You could probably pick any number of military kits--accuracy was never Aurora's strong point. They could always get away with the "artistic interpretation" thing on their horror and sci-fi models.


----------



## kit-junkie (Apr 8, 2005)

I don't know much about the old Aurora kits, but I'll chime in with this. Everything I've built that was once an Aurora kit has been enjoyable. Admittedly, I haven't built many. The Hulk (PL), The Werewolf (Revell), The Munsters (PL) and The Mummy (Monogram Luminator) are it. None of them look exactly like the "real deal" to me. I still enjoyed building all of them, and I plan on building the rest of the monsters, including the Moebius Jeckyll kit. 

Of the reissues I've looked at, I think I have to agree the Jeckyll kit leaves a bit more to be desired than the others.


----------



## Scott J (Jun 21, 2000)

Monsters of the Movies Dracula!!! Looks like a bad toy!!

SJ


----------



## BatToys (Feb 4, 2002)

I'd say The Wolfman because it looked nothing like the fantastic box art.

Close second would be The Batmobile becuase Aurora rushed it thinking kids don't care about accuracy. Too stubby with a short hood and trunk that was copied by Corgi and Ideal. But was redeemed by Polar Lights new version.


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

Either the Flying Reptile or the Monsters of the Movies Dr Jekyll - both are too toylike and compare poorly with the rest of their respective series.


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

My vote goes to Lost In Space Robot. Too many inaccuracies to count. In spite of all it's faults, I also count this as one of my favorite Aurora kits.


Go figure!


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

falcondesigns said:


> The studio got a late model DB 4 to turn into the James Bond Car.


Huh...I always heard it was a DB 5. Well, I don't suppose the model's spy apparatus would've worked any better if it HAD been a DB 5.


----------



## MonsterModelMan (Dec 20, 2000)

Worst out of the monster line-up...that is tough to say as I love ALL of them. 
But I was disappointed as to the size of the Bride, The Witch, The Guillotine Guy as they are smaller figures than the 1/8 size figures.

MMM


----------



## Aurora-brat (Oct 23, 2002)

*"The Wacky Back Whacker"* and *"Nutty Nose Nipper" *were pretty awful from both a concept and execution point of view.

Tory


----------



## Jimmy B (Apr 19, 2000)

The Dick Tracey Space Coupe


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Jimmy B said:


> The Dick Tracey Space Coupe


I can't argue with that one!!

Chris.


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

Auroranut said:


> I can't argue with that one!!
> 
> Chris.


Neither can I - even the base, normally one of Aurora's strong features, seems the wrong size.


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

On the Aurora models (and other companies too) from the 50-60's the box art was way better than the actual kit.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

Auroranut said:


> I can't argue with that one!!
> 
> Chris.


*I think that kit also failed to sell because there was going to be another Dt cartoon, and when that fell through...no one knew the coupe...

Z
*


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

I didn't realise that Zathros. I've never been a big comic fan but it makes sense. I've never seen the coupe before so that explains it.
To me, the coupe looks like an oil filter with suction cups stuck all over it.

Chris.


----------



## Zathros (Dec 21, 2000)

Auroranut said:


> I didn't realise that Zathros. I've never been a big comic fan but it makes sense. I've never seen the coupe before so that explains it.
> To me, the coupe looks like an oil filter with suction cups stuck all over it.
> 
> Chris.


*LOL..you've got a point there, Chris..The coupe made its debut in the newspaper Comic strip first.

Z
*


----------



## Jimmy B (Apr 19, 2000)

Auroranut said:


> To me, the coupe looks like an oil filter with suction cups stuck all over it.
> 
> Chris.


I could make a really poor taste comment on what the Coupe (minus the attachments) looked like but discretion tells me to shut up


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Biggest letdown for me was the Creature from The Black Lagoon. Limp wristed pose and the head is totally wrong. Looks like the boxart but wrong none the less! With piranha teeth no less! 

Ironic though it is. I still like the kit! Aurora still has a spell on me!:wave:


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Jimmy B said:


> I could make a really poor taste comment on what the Coupe (minus the attachments) looked like but discretion tells me to shut up


...and how would you know this??....

Chris.


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

Auroranut said:


> ...and how would you know this??....
> 
> Chris.


...for my own tenuous sanity, I don't want to know!


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Sanity??? What's sanity???...

Chris.


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

That thing I apparently gave up when I became a member here... :tongue:


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Chris.


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

The Batman kit was the biggest "miss" for me in both conception and execution. The sculpt is incredibly stiff, the base is completely wrong for the urban crime fighter, and then there is that damned lopsided owl! Even as a 9 year-old Batman-loving Aurora fanatic, my reaction to that kit was basically "WTF!?"


----------



## DarthForge (Feb 5, 2009)

Mark McGovern said:


> Huh...I always heard it was a DB 5. Well, I don't suppose the model's spy apparatus would've worked any better if it HAD been a DB 5.


Your not mistaken Mark, the car in the movie is a 5.
I think he meant Aurora was given the 4 as a launch point.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Zorro said:


> The Batman kit was the biggest "miss" for me in both conception and execution. The sculpt is incredibly stiff, the base is completely wrong for the urban crime fighter, and then there is that damned lopsided owl! Even as a 9 year-old Batman-loving Aurora fanatic, my reaction to that kit was basically "WTF!?"


 
It's funny, but I liked the Batman kit because it reminded me of the original Bob Kane drawings...which were also incredibly stiff! There is an iconic rather than a realistic quality to it. I even liked the perfectly curved cape flowing behind him. With those comments. the owl and tree with bats don't quite fit into that scenario...but when they extended the base to prevent tipping, they must have felt it needed something to fill in and balance it out. And I wonder whether the sculpt or great Carmen Infantino cover art came first...


----------

