I thought about whether to put this thread in the "vintage toys" or "masks and busts" forum. Then I read the description under the mask forum title: "latex masks and fine sculptures." Nope, that doesn't apply to this thread. So in the toy forum it goes.
It does have an indirect connection to latex masks, or one mask in particular – the Shock Monster. But it has more to do with the character, originally illustrated by Keith Ward in the 1950s, than the famous rubber Topstone mask.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3654/3430385761_f49975bbbf_m.jpg)
In ads for the mask, this face was all over Famous Monsters magazine and other publications during the 1960s. Ben Cooper appropriated the character, using it for at least two Halloween costumes.
This is the 1964 Ben Cooper Phantom of the Opera costume. Doesn't look much like Lon Chaney, does it?
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6046/6371920687_5c73a8bd06_b.jpg)
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6032/6371921093_922be4b80d_b.jpg)
Where have we seen that face before?
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6236/6371921311_cd7d57ebe0_b.jpg)
Here is the costume, folded behind the mask in the box:
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6053/6371921679_d99b81a5da_z.jpg)
I don't like taking costumes out of the box and unfolding them to take pictures. Sometimes you can never get them folded flat again. Luckily, there is already a well-known photo of this mask and costume that has floated around the Internet for years.
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6058/6372326281_ab896a2222_z.jpg)
I don't own this book, but from what I have read online, this is where the photo originated:
Halloween Costumes and other Treats (http://www.amazon.com/Halloween-Costumes-Treats-Schiffer-Collectors/dp/0764314106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254370394&sr=1-1/)
Ben Cooper did make a more traditional Phantom of the Opera costume. This is from 1969:
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6106/6371920835_a185b518ba_b.jpg)
It appears to be based on the James Cagney Phantom from "Man of a Thousand Faces," a biopic about Lon Chaney. A lot of 60s Phantom imagery is based more on the Cagney Phantom than the original Chaney version. I have seen this BC costume in different boxes. It probably was introduced earlier in the 60s. It seems to have been phased out by the 70s. Has anyone seen a 1970s Phantom of the Opera costume from Ben Cooper or Collegeville? I can't think of one.
Here are the two Ben Cooper Phantoms side by side. You can see the earlier "Shock" version has a huge box. It's a "large" size costume, so that might account for it. I don't have another box in that style to compare sizes.
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6109/6371920989_c1272ffa60_b.jpg)
I said there was at least one other Ben Cooper pseudo-Shock costume. Here it is. "Dr. Blackbeard."
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6059/6371920287_5ecb54b12f_b.jpg)
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6051/6371920397_738f4c0bc1_b.jpg)
This one has a beard attached to its chin.
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6041/6371920533_3bd6de5350_b.jpg)
Here are the two Ben Cooper pseudo-Shock costumes side by side.
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6225/6371922007_f4308cc3bb_b.jpg)
I would not be surprised if there were more Ben Cooper pseudo-Shocks. These are the two I know about.
Some might argue that the resemblance is coincidence. I don't think so. There are details like the gash in the right cheek that match the Keith Ward/Topstone Shock character. The yawning, toothy mouth; the skeletal nose; the enlarged right eye; the crumpled right ear that sticks out more than the left; all these are unmistakable references to the Shock Monster. The character was so visible during the 60s, it is not surprising that Ben Cooper would knock it off. Halloween companies were always copying each other's designs back in the day.
You can see it in these two Ben Cooper costumes. The one on the left looks like a Morlock, but it's supposed to be an "Apeman." The one on the right, a "Caveman," looks like the Topstone Caveman designed by Keith Ward.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3601/3703869614_7cd302dc0f_z.jpg?zz=1)
Regardless of the inspiration for these designs, they are all super-cool Halloween costumes. I'm not being disparaging when I point out how one company copied another. In fact, part of the charm of vintage monster items is trying to figure out what inspired the design. They are often swiped from James Bama Aurora artwork, or Don Post masks, or a particular movie still.
I love Ben Cooper, I love Topstone and I love the Phantom of the Opera. Put them all together and you have a triple-decker monster sundae with sprinkles on top.
I love the design of the '69 Phantom, the best.
Those are all very cool costumes and the resemblance to the ol' Shock Monster is definitley undeniable!
Yep, I think you nailed them, Ray!
Happy Thanksgiving,
-Craig
Love that the one Phantom is sporting a stab wound with the knife still embedded in his chest. :o
Quote from: Sean on November 21, 2011, 09:50:09 PM
Love that the one Phantom is sporting a stab wound with the knife still embedded in his chest. :o
You know, I never looked at it that way. I always thought he had used the knife to stab someone, then stuck it in his pocket. But maybe you're right and he's walking around with a knife sticking out of his chest.
Quote from: raycastile on November 21, 2011, 10:28:30 PM
You know, I never looked at it that way. I always thought he had used the knife to stab someone, then stuck it in his pocket. But maybe you're right and he's walking around with a knife sticking out of his chest.
Ouch!!!
I like the graphics on the Phantom costume but I prefer the more traditional looking mask. I'm glad to see they got the safety terminology correct on these. Flame Retardant vs what I have on a few on my boxes Flame Retarded ,DOH! ???
WL - I noticed that on the Gorilla costume you sent me! LOL!
WOW Ray! Thank you. Its great to see these in such detail. What is the copyright detail info on the '64 Shock Monster version. And may I see the side stamps for the later edition as well? I've always wondered if the two-faced jekyll and Hyde mask fit in with the '64 line, but it seems it may be even earlier and that this one is closer in release to the Bride Of Frankenstein. Great find, thanks for the in depth examination.
The Shock Phantom's box has no copyright information. But the costume has a copyright notice of 1964 Universal Studios.
About the side panel, does this pic help?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6393711687_381ff9ca21_o.jpg)
Quote from: Wicked Lester on November 22, 2011, 09:32:13 AM
I like the graphics on the Phantom costume but I prefer the more traditional looking mask. I'm glad to see they got the safety terminology correct on these. Flame Retardant vs what I have on a few on my boxes Flame Retarded ,DOH! ???
Wow, Flame Retarded?! Double, ouch!
Bump up.
Why?
Because it is one of my all time favorite threads, that's why.
So there
Quote from: raycastile on November 20, 2011, 06:20:41 PMI don't own this book, but from what I have read online, this is where the photo originated:
Halloween Costumes and other Treats (http://www.amazon.com/Halloween-Costumes-Treats-Schiffer-Collectors/dp/0764314106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254370394&sr=1-1/)
If you like Halloween costumes, by all means get the book:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518QN4EP1FL._SX389_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
It's a good one!
Quote from: raycastile on November 20, 2011, 06:20:41 PMI don't like taking costumes out of the box and unfolding them to take pictures. Sometimes you can never get them folded flat again.
How many M.I.B. Halloween costumes in all do you have in your collection?
???
I have that book! I have about 2 or 3 dozen boxed costumes
Cool! I'd like to see some pictures! Why don't you start a thread for classic kids' Halloween costumes?
Either that or post yours in one of these existing threads:
http://www.universalmonsterarmy.com/forum/index.php?topic=20324.msg327051;topicseen#msg327051 (http://www.universalmonsterarmy.com/forum/index.php?topic=20324.msg327051;topicseen#msg327051)
http://www.universalmonsterarmy.com/forum/index.php?topic=15262.0 (http://www.universalmonsterarmy.com/forum/index.php?topic=15262.0)
http://www.universalmonsterarmy.com/forum/index.php?topic=29649.0 (http://www.universalmonsterarmy.com/forum/index.php?topic=29649.0)
:)
Quote from: Hepcat on May 14, 2016, 11:11:17 PM
If you like Halloween costumes, by all means get the book:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518QN4EP1FL._SX389_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
It's a good one!
How many M.I.B. Halloween costumes in all do you have in your collection?
???
I'm pretty sure I bought that book in the years since I originally posted. But all my collecting books are now boxed up and in the basement.
I have a lot of boxed costumes. I have several boxes of boxes. I'm guessing I have 75-100 costumes.
So I found this image online. I think this shows that they reused the same smock for the later Phantom mask.
Either that or this particular mask and this smock somehow got mixed up together, which I doubt.
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/79/7b/d3/797bd3182890e4fa41c9a3c77f069ff3--phantom-of-the-opera-vintage-halloween.jpg)
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on October 20, 2017, 04:46:28 PM
Either that or this particular mask and this smock somehow got mixed up together, which I doubt.
It happens! A guy was selling a DP Creature costume and box with a Collegeville Creature mask, a couple of months ago.
Either way, I think this smock is really cool. It's different from the usual kind that have the character on them. (Which I still don't understand.) But I guess I didn't grow up with costumes being like that.
He has his name on his pocket watch so if he loses it people will know where to return it. And I was actually thinking that the knife isn't in him but just in his pocket. That's the blood of whoever he just stabbed.
Not really sure how I feel about the Shock Monster-esque version. It doesn't really seem like the Phantom is the first thing people will think of it as.
Quote from: Mike Scott on October 20, 2017, 05:42:27 PMIt happens! A guy was selling a DP Creature costume and box with a Collegeville Creature mask, a couple of months ago.
:o
Hopefully you pointed that out to him!
???
Quote from: Hepcat on October 21, 2017, 12:50:40 AM
Hopefully you pointed that out to him!
I did and he even had the correct mask in another auction, so he made the switch.
Good man!
8)
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on October 20, 2017, 06:53:41 PMIt's different from the usual kind that have the character on them. (Which I still don't understand.) But I guess I didn't grow up with costumes being like that.
Neither my friends nor I ever had a full-fledged store bought (Collegeville, Ben Cooper, etc.) Halloween costume as kids. My parents would have thought such a thing was shamelessly profligate and completely out of the question.
I'm therefore not sure when I first noted that most of these costumes were self-referential and had the character's name emblazoned on the front. But I thought it was ridiculous and bizarre when I did.
But I now associate the self-referential aspect with the kids' costumes of old that were displayed in a riot of colour hanging from the ceiling in neighbourhood Woolworth, Kresge, Metropolitan and Zellers stores.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/28/59320027_ef89cc0658.jpg)
As a result that's what I now expect in a kids' costume.
:-\
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on October 20, 2017, 04:46:28 PM
So I found this image online. I think this shows that they reused the same smock for the later Phantom mask.
Either that or this particular mask and this smock somehow got mixed up together, which I doubt.
That's not the right mask for that costume.
Quote from: darkmonkeygod on October 24, 2017, 06:55:43 PM
That's not the right mask for that costume.
Have you seen the right shirt for it? What does it look like?
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on October 25, 2017, 10:02:41 AM
Have you seen the right shirt for it? What does it look like?
I have. It's an exaggerated tux front with a huge printed medallion that has the Phantom's face on it.
Quote from: darkmonkeygod on October 26, 2017, 02:03:09 AM
I have. It's an exaggerated tux front with a huge printed medallion that has the Phantom's face on it.
Glad to know. Now I need to find a picture of this.
This one ?
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/SlkAAOSwOS1ZxzGW/s-l1600.jpg)
that's a great looking costume
i do like the blood dripping dagger one a tad bit more though...
because it has a blood dripping dagger on it.
Quote from: Maceo1 on October 26, 2017, 01:39:36 PM
This one ?
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/SlkAAOSwOS1ZxzGW/s-l1600.jpg)
AHHH, THANK YOU!
This was just shared on the Lon Chaney Fans Facebook page by Stanely Gilbert. But anyways, it's a production still from Lassie (or some Lassie related thing) and it seems to be another example of a James Cagney Phantom costume and mask but I think the mask looks a little different. And the costume is definitely different. So does anyone know anything about this? Was this also a Ben Cooper variant? Could the costume originally have come with a different mask?
(https://scontent.fbed1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23031366_10155884485842430_7847775959626980679_n.jpg?oh=331c74cb859de7f7186e1e2447a62398&oe=5AAE9115)
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on October 30, 2017, 12:56:24 PM
This was just shared on the Lon Chaney Fans Facebook page by Stanely Gilbert. But anyways, it's a production still from Lassie (or some Lassie related thing) and it seems to be another example of a James Cagney Phantom costume and mask but I think the mask looks a little different. And the costume is definitely different. So does anyone know anything about this? Was this also a Ben Cooper variant? Could the costume originally have come with a different mask?
Great photo! I'd love to know if it was worn in an episode. To answer your questions:
Yes. This is a Halco Phantom of the Opera Costume.
No relation to Ben Cooper other than being a competitor and *seemingly* loosing the Uni license to Ben Cooper in the middle sixties.
To my knowledge this is the only mask ever issued with the Halco Phantom costume, but I have seen the costume
in two differing color schemes, both with the same design (as seen in the photo).
Then witch mask does this one go with?
(http://i64.tinypic.com/6z58hw.jpg)
What was with the Cagney obsession in the 60's? I mean, I get that Man of a Thousand Faces was more recent than the actual Phantom of the Opera movie but it's still weird. Was Universal only officially licensing the appearance from that movie at the time? Well, I know the Don Post masks actually did the Lon Chaney look. So I don't know. Maybe MOATF stills were just more common at the time to work with?
There are only a couple eye witness renditions of the Phantom I trust:
James Bama
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g434/Balticprince/Aurora20Box20Phantom.jpg)
Basil Gogos
(https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-992pzpjj5g/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/29/115/Phantom__22066.1586805859.png?c=2)
cl:)
Quote from: Hepcat on December 07, 2022, 06:16:50 PM
There are only a couple eye witness renditions of the Phantom I trust:
Eyewitness?
Oh absolutely! James Bama and Basil Gogos illustrated only what they observed in the wild (so to speak).
cl:)
Quote from: Hepcat on December 07, 2022, 10:12:04 PM
Oh absolutely! James Bama and Basil Gogos illustrated only what they observed in the wild (so to speak).
Still don't get it. Gogos worked from photos.
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on October 31, 2017, 10:43:00 AM
What was with the Cagney obsession in the 60's? I mean, I get that Man of a Thousand Faces was more recent than the actual Phantom of the Opera movie but it's still weird. Was Universal only officially licensing the appearance from that movie at the time? Well, I know the Don Post masks actually did the Lon Chaney look. So I don't know. Maybe MOATF stills were just more common at the time to work with?
I imagine it's the same reason we get Glenn Strange as the Monster during this period. He was the most recent Frankenstein actor.
I believe the reason Bela Lugosi is now immortalized as Count Dracula is because of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. But for his appearance in that film, he would have been forgotten to an entire generation, replaced by some other Dracula in all the model kits and masks. And that's the weird thing about Lugosi... He was very much present in the Monster Kid Generation, and would have continued to be for decades to come, but lawsuits took him away from the public eye for all that time. But, because of his A&C appearance, he became secured as our collective vision of Dracula. And that's the reason we never got any replacement Dracula merchandise in all those decades. It was either no Dracula or a generic Lugosi knockoff. Had Carradine or another actor played Dracula in A&CMF, we'd probably have another Universal Dracula. The lawsuits did more harm than good for the Dracula image. But Bela persists because he was Dracula at the beginning and the end. I have a lot more thoughts on this, but I am tired and must sleep.
Quote from: Mike Scott on December 07, 2022, 10:25:42 PMStill don't get it. Gogos worked from photos.
Interesting! I heard that he was a frequent guest of the Phantom.
???
The Aurora kits influenced the majority of 60s monster toys. Thats why so moch looks like Cagney. Universal didnt have any specific actor or look they pushed to licensees at the time.
Don Post Sudios almost used the Cagney make-up mold to create a mask.
Lugosi solidified himself as Dracula in the 30s. All through the time between Drac and A+C and beyond..regardless whatever actor played the role....to the general public Lugosi is Dracula. He was still represented in pop culture regardless who was currently on screen.
Whenever anyone else played Drac they were immediately compared to Lugosi.
Quote from: aura of foreboding on December 08, 2022, 01:22:28 AMI believe the reason Bela Lugosi is now immortalized as Count Dracula is because of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. But for his appearance in that film, he would have been forgotten to an entire generation, replaced by some other Dracula in all the model kits and masks. And that's the weird thing about Lugosi... He was very much present in the Monster Kid Generation, and would have continued to be for decades to come, but lawsuits took him away from the public eye for all that time. But, because of his A&C appearance, he became secured as our collective vision of Dracula. And that's the reason we never got any replacement Dracula merchandise in all those decades. It was either no Dracula or a generic Lugosi knockoff. Had Carradine or another actor played Dracula in A&CMF, we'd probably have another Universal Dracula. The lawsuits did more harm than good for the Dracula image. But Bela persists because he was Dracula at the beginning and the end.
Hmmmmm.
Bela Lugosi as Dracula:
Dracula (1931)
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)
John Carradine as Dracula:
House of Frankenstein (1944)
House of Dracula (1945)
Matinee Theatre: Dracula (TV 1956)
Billy the Kid vs. Dracula (1966)
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 08, 2022, 09:29:22 AM....to the general public Lugosi is Dracula. He was still represented in pop culture regardless who was currently on screen.
Whenever anyone else played Drac they were immediately compared to Lugosi.
It would therefore perhaps have been a good thing had Bela Lugosi
not re-appeared as Dracula in
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Lugosi introduced an element of camp into the Dracula character. It's his portrayal that's caused generations of kids to mime Dracula by raising their forearms to their chins and repeating the words "I vant to suck your blood" in heavily accented English.
This was not the Dracula in Bram Stoker's book, nor the character Christopher Lee portrayed. Interesting that at a preview screening of Hammer's
Horror of Dracula, the audience all laughed when Christopher Lee appeared in the full Dracula regalia that Bela Lugosi had made famous. As soon as he spoke though, the laughter stopped - and was heard no more during the film. Christopher Lee was the one who nailed the grim menace of Bram Stoker's character:
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g434/Balticprince/General%20Album%203/621f4014-7ca9-41d4-88a7-8426cc7705d5_zpssijvfov8.jpg)
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g434/Balticprince/Achris5.jpg)
thrhrt
Quote from: Hepcat on December 08, 2022, 01:27:03 AM
I heard that he was a frequent guest of the Phantom.
I don't know what that means.
They were good buddies. That's why/how Gogos was able to capture the Phantom's soul in his rendition.
:)
The "I vant to such your blaahd" sterotype stuff mostly came from Gabe Dell's popullar impression on the Steve Allen Show. Sometimes the imitation becomes what people think of more than the real thing..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tBG1Te7A8So
Quote from: Hepcat on December 08, 2022, 12:18:18 PM
Hmmmmm. Bela Lugosi as Dracula:
Dracula (1931)
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)
John Carradine as Dracula
House of Frankenstein (1944)
House of Dracula (1945)
Matinee Theatre: Dracula (TV 1956)
Billy the Kid vs. Dracula (1966)
As far as the Universals go, A&C was the last... and definitely much more widely regarded than either Matinee or Billy the Kid.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 08, 2022, 09:29:22 AM
Lugosi solidified himself as Dracula in the 30s. All through the time between Drac and A+C and beyond..regardless whatever actor played the role....to the general public Lugosi is Dracula. He was still represented in pop culture regardless who was currently on screen.
Karloff solidified himself as the Monster in 1931, but to Monster Kids, the image was/is Strange.
The merchandisers drew from A&C, and the merchandise - not the movies - solidified what actor represented each character for generations.
My point was I dont think its on purpose. Universal probably had more stills readily available from the most recent films. Also the films werent readily available to watch so they werent common knowledge. At that time most knew them more from FM than the films themselves.
For instance the Don Post Hunchbsck, Hyde, and Smooth Glenn masks were chosen simply because they had access to Universals molds. Why the Underwater Creech over the more iconic Land Head also. They eventually did Karloff in 67 replacing Strange.
There was some Karloff stuff, kids were aware.of the difference.
Uni had no ryhme or reason to their merch. The person in charge couldnt even tell them apart based on this 70s era Uni Tour book thar labels Cagney as Chaney and Strange as Karloff.
Not mine
(https://i.postimg.cc/L4B0XzRD/s-l1600-143.jpg)
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 08, 2022, 10:55:25 PM
My point was I dont think its on purpose. Universal probably had more stills readily available from the most recent films.
As good a reason as any. And, with the vast amount of promotional photography done for that film, it makes sense.
Like I said, without A&C, Lugosi's solidification as Dracula would have been far more tenuous in the latter half of the 20th century. Could have been that, like Karloff, he would later become the face of Dracula through marketing and toys, but, because of the lawsuits, probably not. A&C was the best thing to happen to Lugosi in his career since landing the original role. Given how badly everything played out for him starting in the late '30s, it's nice that things turned out the way they did.
The fact that Dracula was basically the star of A&CMF also helped with the amount of photographs available of the character. Dracula was a side character in the earlier Monster Mash-Ups, but A&C was a Dracula film.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 08, 2022, 04:34:01 PM
The "I vant to such your blaahd" sterotype stuff mostly came from Gabe Dell's popullar impression on the Steve Allen Show. Sometimes the imitation becomes what people think of more than the real thing..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tBG1Te7A8So
That was definitely the case with Peter Lorre. Paul Frees impersonating Peter Lorre, is what most people think of.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 08, 2022, 04:34:01 PMThe "I vant to such your blaahd" sterotype stuff mostly came from Gabe Dell's popullar impression on the Steve Allen Show. Sometimes the imitation becomes what people think of more than the real thing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tBG1Te7A8So
Interesting observation! I still believe though that the Bela Lugosi movies, particularly
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, had a lot to do with the campy elements in the public stereotype of the Dracula character. Gabe Dell was after all spoofing something that was already there.
:-\
Quote from: Hepcat on December 09, 2022, 11:12:20 AM
Interesting observation! I still believe though that the Bela Lugosi movies, particularly Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, had a lot to do with the campy elements in the public stereotype of the Dracula character. Gabe Dell was after all spoofing something that was already there.
:-\
Yes, but its like people saying 70s porn music goes. "Bow chicka wow wow". When that actually came from a stand-up comedians routine in the late 80s. that aired on cable. Verbatim. Yes 70s porn music is funky, but that exact word for word sterotype came from that comedian. Most doing it never saw a 70s porn same way most had never seen a Lugosi film but knew "Blaah Blaah..goo deevenink" stuff.
Gabe is Drac on FM Monsters Speak after all.
Or like Franks "Robot" walk. Yes it came from Lugosi etc...But it was cartoons etc...that turned it into the completely stiffed limbed exaggeration everyone associated with the Monstah.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on December 09, 2022, 10:50:34 AM
Paul Frees impersonating Peter Lorre, is what most people think of.
I think of Mel Blank or Stan Frieberg (photo).
"Give me your wishbone!"
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/2489/SnbTWM.jpg)
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 08, 2022, 09:29:22 AMThe Aurora kits influenced the majority of 60s monster toys.
Quote from: aura of foreboding on December 08, 2022, 09:25:02 PM...the merchandise - not the movies - solidified what actor represented each character for generations.
I couldn't agree more. For decades I thought any portrayal of Wolf Man without the pointy ears Wolf Man sported on the Aurora model kit box and on my SPP Wolfman-Creature wallet simply wasn't right. I thought Wolf Man had to look like this:
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g434/Balticprince/General%20Album%202/WolfmanModelKit_zps8bdc5819.jpg)
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g434/Balticprince/walletdz9.jpg)
That was always my Wolf Man.
cl:)
Quote from: aura of foreboding on December 08, 2022, 01:22:28 AMI imagine it's the same reason we get Glenn Strange as the Monster during this period. He was the most recent Frankenstein actor.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 08, 2022, 09:29:22 AMThe Aurora kits influenced the majority of 60s monster toys.... Universal didnt have any specific actor or look they pushed to licensees at the time.
Quote from: aura of foreboding on December 08, 2022, 09:25:02 PMKarloff solidified himself as the Monster in 1931, but to Monster Kids, the image was/is Strange.
...the merchandise - not the movies - solidified what actor represented each character for generations.
Interesting! I never previously considered on which actor Aurora's or the other toy makers' Frankenstein imagery were based. Let's have a look:
Boris Karloff(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/g434/Balticprince/Frankenstein_s_monster_(Boris_Karloff).jpg)
Glenn Strange(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/g434/Balticprince/glenn-strange-frankenstein.webp)
Aurora (James Bama)(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/g434/Balticprince/Bama_Frankenstein.jpg)
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g434/Balticprince/bamafrk.jpg)
The James Bama Frankenstein head portrait above did triple duty as one of the Post cereal monster posters and on the APC Frankenstein puzzle box. Both of the above box art renderings of Frankenstein that Bama originally did for Aurora look to be based on Glenn Strange.
Standard Plastic Products(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g434/Balticprince/Frankensteinwallet5.png)
More like Glenn Strange I'd say.
Louis Marx(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52493300986_763cb64035_z.jpg)
Glenn Strange once again I think.
ededed
The aurora head sculpt and clothing is based on bride Karloff. Right down to the hairline with no bangs, scaring and the clamps on the temples.
(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/PMAK8H/boris-karloff-the-bride-of-frankenstein-1935-universal-file-reference-33300-310tha-PMAK8H.jpg)
Box is based on a still ftom House of Frankenstein.. and the kits pose from HOD.
(https://d1w8cc2yygc27j.cloudfront.net/6763432476112409705/8390208198034748960.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8e/4d/89/8e4d89fc06f63406a557514c1137c51b.jpg)
I think Glenn merch exposed him to more kids but from the people Ive asked they were aware of the difference. FM etc regulary made it a point to differentiate them. Its kinda like Jason merch based on Jason Goes to Hell.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 10, 2022, 08:05:13 PMI think Glenn merch exposed him to more kids but from the people Ive asked they were aware of the difference. FM etc regulary made it a point to differentiate them.
Yes, but the people you've been inclined to ask would not have been representative of a cross sample of the population. They would have been present day Universal monster enthusiasts. And I agree with Devlin here:
Quote from: Devlin on December 07, 2022, 07:40:46 PMI think we can all agree that we're not exactly typical American consumers!
I can tell you that as a kid I knew the difference between Hammer's Frankenstein and the previous Universal ones, but I certainly didn't know the difference between the Boris Karloff one and the Glenn Strange one. Here incidentally are the appearances as Frankenstein of the latter two actors:
Boris KarloffFrankenstein (1931)
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Son of Frankenstein (1939)
Glenn StrangeHouse of Frankenstein (1944)
House of Dracula (1945)
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)
The Colgate Comedy Hour (early 1950's)
Moreover while I bought
Creepy and
Eerie magazines, I never bought
Famous Monsters of Filmland. Nor did I even know anyone who had any
Famous Monsters issues. So while most kids back in the 1960's were well aware of the Aurora monster model kits, relatively few were "monster kids" to the extent of buying
Famous Monsters of Filmland.
But speaking of
Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine, here are the issues from the 1960's that have an identifiable Frankenstein pictured on the cover:
#21 - 1963(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/g434/Balticprince/Famous_Monsters_21.jpg)
A Boris Karloff Frankenstein still.
My own copy of #42 - 1967(https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/g434/Balticprince/.highres/edited-image_zpsw6ljeixr.png)
More like Glenn Strange.
#56 - 1969(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/g434/Balticprince/Famous_Monsters_56.jpg)
Certainly Boris Karloff inspired.
ededed
As a kid, I had no idea different actors played Frankenstein until I was like... 12 or 13. Now, I didn't have FMOFL, but I did have access to the Crestwood Monster Library. I was really only interested in the characters, though, not the actors. So anything relating to that went in one ear and out the other. Dracula was a different story, because there wasn't a lot of makeup. But Frankenstein... yeah, no idea.
I asked people who were fans and collectors IN the 60s. East Coast, West Coast and in between.
Lots of kids bought and read FM. Thats why he's Uncle Forry.😉
If anything kids probably didnt know who Glenn was. Karloff IS Frankenstein the same way Lugosi is Dracula. Thats never wavered since 1931. Regardless who was currently in the role. When Glenn first had Frank make-up applied he exclaimed "oh my god Im Boris Karloff". Or something along those lines.
If kids knew anything it was Karloff was Frank even if they didnt know the image was Glenn they were looking at.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxhrSgNy/143127934-3652973231456074-7295523554802513300-n.jpg)
Glenns face was on a bunch of adverts for Frank 31.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRQGLs3J/1670789540156349111350.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5t0Ymz2c/16707898375901671696489.jpg)
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 03:20:57 PM
If kids knew anything it was Karloff was Frank even if they didnt know the image was Glenn they were looking at.
That makes sense. And that really was my point. Glenn Strange's image had so saturated the market, that most kids saw him as Frankenstein... even though many probably didn't know who he was or thought he was Karloff... if they knew or cared about the actors.
Quote from: aura of foreboding on December 11, 2022, 02:59:43 PM
As a kid, I had no idea different actors played Frankenstein until I was like... 12 or 13. Now, I didn't have FMOFL, but I did have access to the Crestwood Monster Library. I was really only interested in the characters, though, not the actors. So anything relating to that went in one ear and out the other. Dracula was a different story, because there wasn't a lot of makeup. But Frankenstein... yeah, no idea.
The Crestwood Frank book lists each one. The information was out there if you looked.
Hell I was so dumb as a kid I thought Eric Carr and Vinnie Vincent were Ace and Peters real names without make-up. But I also didnt buy any magazine or read up on anything. They were never on TV etc., like other bands during that period.
But there were kids that did know. So the info is out there. Was no different during any era of fandom. Some kids knew, some didnt. But not on purpose.
Quote from: aura of foreboding on December 11, 2022, 03:27:37 PM
That makes sense. And that really was my point. Glenn Strange's image had so saturated the market, that most kids saw him as Frankenstein... even though many probably didn't know who he was or thought he was Karloff... if they knew or cared about the actors.
Exactly. If you cared about the actios you probably at least knew Karloff. Otherwise Frank was Frank so long as it was the "Universal" look. All kids knew how Frank should look. If not the actor.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 03:20:57 PMIf anything kids probably didnt know who Glenn was. Karloff IS Frankenstein the same way Lugosi is Dracula. Thats never wavered since 1931.
If kids knew anything it was Karloff was Frank even if they didnt know the image was Glenn they were looking at.
Now that's where we're in full agreement. But you've also been implying that there was widespread awareness that another actor by the name of Glenn Strange played Frankenstein:
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 10, 2022, 08:05:13 PMI think Glenn merch exposed him to more kids but from the people Ive asked they were aware of the difference. FM etc regulary made it a point to differentiate them.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 03:20:57 PMI asked people who were fans and collectors IN the 60s. East Coast, West Coast and in between.
That though is precisely where you're skewing your sample which is what's making you think that a significant minority of kids in the 1960's knew that Glenn Strange also played Frankenstein. Fans and collectors (of
Famous Monsters of Filmland) weren't representative of the mass market in the 1960's. They were an enthusiastic but tiny minority.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 03:20:57 PMLots of kids bought and read FM. Thats why he's Uncle Forry.😉
But
Famous Monsters of Filmland wasn't a smashing newsstand success! Few kids bought it. The first year that even six issues were published was 1967! Yes,
now it's highly prized by collectors because of the x-over appeal generated by sister Warren magazines
Creepy,
Eerie and
Vampirella which were much bigger hits on newsstands.
Incidentally, I think the best 1960's rendition of Frankenstein (the Boris Karloff version) was the one James Bama did for the cover of the 1967 Bantam
Frankenstein paperback:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/g434/Balticprince/Frankenstein_James_Bama.jpg)
:)
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 03:31:36 PM
The Crestwood Frank book lists each one. The information was out there if you looked.
Yeah. Once I got to page 27 (end of the story), I stopped reading through and then just started looking at the pictures and scanning the text for anything of interest. I'd stop and examine The Munsters picture and other interesting pictures of Universal's Frankenstein, but never read the whole thing as a kid. (I actually disliked reading for pleasure. I still do. As a tween and teen, I found the back of the books far more interesting, as I was gaining information.) The only Crestwood that I really read cover to cover as a kid was Dracula, but it was because I was obsessed. haha
Quote from: Hepcat on December 11, 2022, 07:23:24 PM
Now that's where we're in full agreement.
That though is precisely where you're skewing your sample which is what's making you think that a significant minority of kids in the 1960's knew that Glenn Strange also played Frankenstein. Fans and collectors (of Famous Monsters of Filmland) weren't representative of the mass market in the 1960's. They were an enthusiastic but tiny minority.
Huh?? Thats what we are talking about. Enthusiasts. Not a kid that had one or 2 monster toys to go along with his gi joes because he thought they were Neat-o.
And you are assuming all kids were like you and didnt know. But Im telling you from my experiemce 60s "Monster Kids" knew the difference. If they didnt than clearly that person was not a monster kid now were they?😉
Quote from: aura of foreboding on December 11, 2022, 02:59:43 PMAs a kid, I had no idea different actors played Frankenstein until I was like... 12 or 13. Now, I didn't have FMOFL, but I did have access to the Crestwood Monster Library. I was really only interested in the characters, though, not the actors. So anything relating to that went in one ear and out the other.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 03:31:36 PMThe Crestwood Frank book lists each one. The information was out there if you looked.
Interesting this Crestwood Monster Library which came out after my time in 1977-87. Here's a good article on the
Frankenstein book:
Crestwood Monster Series - Branded in the 80s (https://brandedinthe80s.com/6757/a-more-in-depth-look-at-the-crestwood-monster-series)
And here's what Horror Hound has to say:
Quote from: Crestwood House Retrospective - Horror Hound; 6 March 2020The Crestwood House Monsters series (the orange monster books as I called them) had fifteen books. Ian Thorne (a pseudonym used by author Julian May) wrote the first twelve, William R. Sanford and Carl R. Green wrote the last three. The books were published between 1977 to 1987 and served as "Monsters 101," for any young child who found the subject matter interesting. The monsters or movies covered were Dracula, Frankenstein, Godzilla, King Kong, and others.
I discovered these books at the library during a kindergarten trip, the two my library had were Creature from the Black Lagoon and The Deadly Mantis. The Godzilla one was always checked out, but I did get the chance to read it. I remember explicitly reading the Creature multiple times, due to me being home with the chickenpox in first grade. The day before I started to show signs of chickenpox, my grandmother took me to the library, and I checked out Creature, so I spent the entire time watching The Creature from the Black Lagoon and reading about it as well. However, there were some factual errors in the books; most fans know of the King Kong vs. Godzilla dual ending myth partially because of this book. Factual inaccuracies aside, the books were filled with excellent images and had plenty for the young reader to enjoy.
cl:)
Quote from: aura of foreboding on December 11, 2022, 09:09:00 PMI actually disliked reading for pleasure. I still do.
Hah! I've been reading for pleasure all my life. Over my lifetime the amount of time I've spent watching movies and TV is probably only about 10% of the time I've spent reading (not including school work or office job related).
;D
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 09:43:26 PMHuh?? Thats what we are talking about. Enthusiasts.
No. Your own statements were far more general:
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 03:20:57 PMIf anything kids probably didnt know who Glenn was.
If kids knew anything it was Karloff was Frank even if they didnt know the image was Glenn they were looking at.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 03:35:18 PMAll kids knew how Frank should look. If not the actor.
It's too late to backtrack. Meanwhile I've been saying all along that the vast majority of the kids who built any of the Aurora monster models did not know the difference between the Frankensteins of Boris Karloff and Glenn Strange. And just like aura of foreboding I had no interest in the actors. Therefore the difference between the two Universal Frankensteins never crossed my mind.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 09:43:26 PMNot a kid that had one or 2 monster toys to go along with his gi joes because he thought they were Neat-o.
Excuse me but let me disabuse you of the notion that most kids had enough money during the heyday of Aurora's monster model kits in 1961-67 to get every monster model, every issue of
Creepy,
Eerie and
Famous Monsters of Filmland, every monster-related card set issued by Topps, Leaf, Fleer, Donruss or Philly Gum, the Marx, MPC and Palmer figures, the various Hasbro and Ideal board games, etc, etc.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 09:43:26 PMAnd you are assuming all kids were like you and didnt know.
You yourself explicitly stated the same. See above. But logical consistency is not your strong point.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 09:43:26 PMBut Im telling you from my experiemce 60s "Monster Kids" knew the difference. If they didnt than clearly that person was not a monster kid now were they?😉
Interesting this newly hatched "monster kid" definition of yours.
Thinking about it, I'd probably define a monster kid as one who eagerly spent money on whatever monster related items he could afford in roughly the 1959-69 period. Let's see, I had a number of the 1959
You'll Die Laughing cards, a set of at least the first series of
Spook Stories cards, a Hasbro monster themed Marble Maze, a Mad Mad Mad Scientist Laboratory, an SPP Creature-Wolfman wallet, three Aurora monster model kits, three Revell "Big Daddy" Roth model kits, a Brother Rat Fink T-Shirt Iron-On, a Rat Fink sweat shirt and a stack of a few dozen
Creepy and
Eerie magazines that I initially bought off newsstands before getting a subscription. I take it though that's not enough to meet your lofty standards. Sorry for not being rich enough as a kid.
::)
Quote from: Hepcat on December 11, 2022, 10:05:00 PM
Interesting this Crestwood Monster Library which came out after my time in 1977-87. Here's a good article on the Frankenstein book:
Crestwood Monster Series - Branded in the 80s (https://brandedinthe80s.com/6757/a-more-in-depth-look-at-the-crestwood-monster-series)
My favorite part of this is the fact the author had to backtrack his statement about who was playing the monster on the cover of the book! Because, to be completely out front, I still have difficulty distinguishing certain pictures. (I'm not a visual person.) Like I know the facial features of each actor, but it takes me more seconds than it should to pinpoint whether it's Chaney or Lugosi under the makeup. Pretty good about Karloff and Strange. Honestly, I've always felt the Aurora kit looked more like Chaney than anyone else... Same with the Remco figure.
Quote from: Hepcat on December 11, 2022, 10:10:40 PM
Hah! I've been reading for pleasure all my life. Over my lifetime the amount of time I've spent watching movies and TV is probably only about 10% of the time I've spent reading (not including school work or office job related).
;D
I enjoy reading nonfiction now, monster magazines, and articles. Still can't really get behind reading novels. Maybe if they had pictures like my Crestwood books! :D
Hepcat, you are the most difficult person to have a conversation with. I dont even know why I bother interacting with you. I cant find the exact word...but Annoying and irritating come to mind.
Ive gathered my opinions from over 20+ years spent in online groups etc discussing mosters with other fans. Not the UMA bubble of 5 people. And there are certain things that go without saying when discussing fandom that you just dont seem to understand because you are hooked on semantics. "Oh well you said this...and worded it like this..." Boy I tell ya....you must be fun at parties.
Go back to being Mr Poe's hype man and PR agent or telling us about your drippy eye because nobody here cares. I said it before and Ill say it again. YOU are one of the main reasons the original members no longer post here. So congratulate yourself. I have Never, Ever thought of blocking anyone from seeing my posts but I think with you I need to make an exception. You are just too annoying. Spoiler.......people hate when you resurrect 10 years old posts.
I was referring to kids with a casual intetest who would only have one or 2 monster items.....by choice....because they were trendy or the hot thing to play with.
If you did not know who Karloff was you werent a monster kid. Regardless when you grew up.or how much money you did or did not have to buy stuff. I didnt have all that you did growing up despite your assumptions. I only had the large Remco Frank and the minis.....but I still knew who Karloff was. 😉
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxDxjy0m/16708426904001216429280.jpg)
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 12, 2022, 04:35:06 AM....but Annoying and irritating come to mind.... because you are hooked on semantics. "Oh well you said this...and worded it like this..."
Me I've never thought that logical consistency was too much to demand.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 12, 2022, 04:35:06 AM"Oh well you said this...and worded it like this..." Boy I tell ya....you must be fun at parties.
Well you're right in a way. The alcohol that most people imbibe at parties doesn't exactly lend itself to coherent let alone logical discussion.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 12, 2022, 04:35:06 AMGo back to being Mr Poe's hype man and PR agent or telling us about your drippy eye because nobody here cares. I said it before and Ill say it again. YOU are one of the main reasons the original members no longer post here. So congratulate yourself.... Spoiler.......people hate when you resurrect 10 years old posts.
Now what's that you were saying about not assuming that everybody has just the same knowledge/preferences/reactions?
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 09:43:26 PMAnd you are assuming all kids were like you and didnt know.
Sorry.
Everybody isn't just like you and a certain other member who left in a huff because people disagreed with his opinions of Hugh Hefner and Forrest Ackerman. Nor does everybody resort to personal attacks in response to any disagreement, in this case what monster kids from the 1960's might have known.
And incidentally why would any rational man object to resurrecting topics that are loaded with points of interest to the present posters of this board? Take this thread as a case in point. Since I bumped it up on December 7th, well over two pages of scintillating information laden discourse has resulted!
;D
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 12, 2022, 04:35:06 AMIf you did not know who Karloff was you werent a monster kid.... I only had the large Remco Frank and the minis.....but I still knew who Karloff was.
Well yes, I agree that the typical monster kid would have heard of Boris Karloff - but you've moved the goal posts again! You were previously arguing that monster kids would have known of the difference between the Boris Karloff and Glenn Strange Frankensteins which was something with which I disagreed:
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 09:43:26 PMBut Im telling you from my experiemce 60s "Monster Kids" knew the difference. If they didnt than clearly that person was not a monster kid now were they?
I was arguing that there were many monster kids in the 1960's (which I define as those who liked Aurora monster models) who didn't know the difference between the Karloff and Strange Frankensteins.
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 11, 2022, 09:43:26 PMNot a kid that had one or 2 monster toys to go along with his gi joes because he thought they were Neat-o.
Incidentally, on what basis other than they were neat-o should a kid back in the 1960's have liked monsters?
???
Quote from: Dr.Terror on December 12, 2022, 04:35:06 AM
If you did not know who Karloff was you werent a monster kid.
This actually triggered a memory from 4th grade. I remember getting a kid in trouble (for cussing) because he didn't know who Boris Karloff was, and I felt it was just. ;D
So I turned nine in April of fourth grade and I can't say that I knew of Boris Karloff. Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. The Aurora Frankenstein kit hit store shelves sometime in 1961 but the Spook Stories cards which I avidly bought and collected didn't hit variety store counters until 1962:
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g434/Balticprince/SpookStories.jpg)
We didn't get a television until the summer of 1961 and I don't believe I was even aware of Famous Monsters of Filmland at that age since there would have been no point in my perusing the magazine rack for a 35 cent publication. Moreover there were no books like the Crestwood ones at the time. Therefore the only place I could have heard of Boris Karloff was in the schoolyard. All I can tell you for sure is that I wasn't the one who cussed you out. But who knows, that fellow may today be a poster on this very board!
;D