Hey guys, I'm taking a digital story class and my final project is basically anything goes. So, I decided to talk about one of my favorite topics, Universal Monsters! It turns out, it was a lot harder than I first thought. The biggest problem is that the project has a time limit of five minutes. Therefore, the narration needs to last about 4 and a half-ish. That is not a lot of time to discuss the topic. I was originally going to cover all of Universal Horror, but I hit the 4:30 mark upon discussing Dracula's Daughter. I then tried restricting it to just the canonical Universal Monsters, but that's a whole other can of worms. I realize that my definition of a "universal monster" will not be the same as everyone else's, but keep in mind, I'm trying to tell people who have probably never seen the films about their history in under five minutes. Regardless, I would like to get some feedback on facts and what not and make sure that it covers what I am trying to cover with accuracy. Disregard misspellings and grammatical issues, I have not addressed those yet. I want to make sure the facts are down first before I move on.
---
Universal Studios celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2012. Although Universal has found most of its success in recent years with big mainstream spectacles like "The Fast and the Furious", there was a time when horror movies were Universal's specialty. Universal would create a world of cherished creatures over the next several decades affectionately known as the Universal Monsters. Although there is plenty of debate as to which monsters fall under this umbrella, there is little doubt as to which monster started the famous lineage. The first horror film produced by Universal was "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" starring Lon Chaney as the deformed hunchback Quasimodo in 1923. It proved to be successful, earning over $3 million to make it Universal's most successful silent film and launching Lon Chaney's film career. It would also provide the formula for horror movies to come, including Universal's next silent hit "The Phantom of the Opera" in 1925. "Phantom" also starred Lon Chaney, this time as the disfigured Erik. Chaney's makeup has become a cultural icon in the movie industry and serves as a reminder for why Lon Chaney was known as "The Man of 1,000 Faces".
Universal's first film to feature a famous monster in the sound era was 1931's "Dracula", directed by Tod Browning and starring Bela Lugosi in leading role,
Dracula was a financial and critical success. Audience members were amazed, even fainting in shock at some screenings. Despite the many adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel, Bela Lugosi's portrayal of the world's most famous vampire has become the image most people think of when someone says the name Dracula.
1931 also saw the release of "Frankenstein", directed by James Whale. This would be the first of many horror films to star Boris Karloff, making him a household name. Lugosi was originally slated to play the role of the Monster in "Frankenstein" before the role went to Karloff. Whether it was because Lugosi did not want to play a role with no lines or because James Whale thought he was not suited for the role is still up for debate to this day. Regardless, Karloff and Lugosi's names would become intertwined for years to come.
In 1932, Boris Karloff who would play another famous Universal Monster, this time in 1932's "The Mummy". The film has proven to be important in Universal's history, as it was not only successful in its own right, but would live on through a successful remake franchise in the late 1990's through the 2000's, more than 75 years after the original's release.
Lugosi and Karloff, Universal's hardest working and most marketable horror stars, would take 1933 off from Universal's horror cycle, but Claude Rains was willing and able to fill in with "The Invisible Man", directed by "Frankenstein" director James Whale. This ground-breaking film was another runaway success for the studio, launching Rains's career in the same way Lugosi and Karloff saw the start of their careers.
The next film to feature a new Universal Monster was also the first sequel to a Universal Horror film, "The Bride of Frankenstein" in 1935. Colin Clive returned as Dr. Frankenstein, while Boris Karloff resumed the role that made him famous. Despite being the sequel to what is considered to be a classic and near perfect horror film, "The Bride of Frankenstein" wowed audiences and critics alike and is considered to be one of, if not the greatest Universal horror movie, thanks in no small part to director James Whale and the addition of actor Ernest Thesiger as the diabolical Dr. Pretorious. This film also marks the debut of the first and only female member of the Universal Monster family, The Bride of Frankenstein, played by Elsa Lanchester.
Several years would pass before another monster debuted that would join Universal's horror star canon. Although Universal had several successes with films like "The Son of Frankenstein" and "The Mummy's Hand", it would not be until "The Wolf Man" premiered in 1941 that Universal would find not only a new monster, but its new horror star. Larry Talbot, "The Wolf Man's" sympathetic protagonist, was played by Lon Chaney Jr. Much like his father who portrayed monsters in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and "Phantom of the Opera", Lon Chaney Jr. would prove to be one of horror's greatest icons. He would go on to become the only actor to play the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's Monster, the Mummy and Count Dracula for Universal
As the 40's winded down, so too did Universal's horror cycle. After a run of successful sequels, Universal tried something different, bidding farewell to their monsters with "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein", the 1948 classic that teamed up the famous comedic duo with the Frankenstein Monster, the Wolf Man and Dracula, portrayed by Bela Lugosi for the first time since 1931. Ironically, this would lead to a string of sequels, featuring Bud Abbott and Lou Costello with other monsters, including the Invisible Man, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and the Mummy.
With the 1950's, Universal, like so many other studios at the time, became more interested in science fiction. Although there were several memorable films throughout the decade, only one monster from the period has been added to the Universal Monster canon. Universal released "Creature from the Black Lagoon" in 1954, a throwback to the Universal horror films of yesteryear, with the added twist of 3D. Although monsters like the Metaluna Mutant and the Mole People are occasionally featured in Universal merchandise, the Creature or Gill-man as some call him is the only one to consistently be featured alongside the most famous monsters from Universal's golden era.
Universal never stopped making horror movies, but they are nowhere as prominent as they once were. Movies like Psycho, Jaws, The Thing, Tremors, Jurassic Park and their remakes of Dawn of the Dead, King Kong and The Mummy show there is still that spark for the genre that helped create the powerhouse that is Universal. Perhaps the next addition to the Universal Monster family is just around the corner.
---
I also tend to go overboard on little details. For example, here is the opening of the video, inspired by Dracula:
Monsters Title (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XOjyKoalw#ws)
Thanks for watching and reading! Perhaps I will share the first draft that covered a lot more of Universal's horror history sometime.
I think you are trying to tackle too much material for 4 minutes. Why don't you just discuss the old "Universal Monster cycle" and how it saved the studio at the time?
Quote from: Monster Bob on December 07, 2013, 12:53:58 PM
I think you are trying to tackle too much material for 4 minutes. Why don't you just discuss the old "Universal Monster cycle" and how it saved the studio at the time?
The amount of material is fine, just focusing on the monsters. I have 5 minutes, not 4. Besides, that's basically all I talk about except for the few out liars that have to be addressed.
How about how Universal Studios created the iconic look to classic monsters? When you ask anyone of any age to pick out Dracula from a group of pictures of Lugosi, Lee, Langella, and Oldman, it's Lugosi that they will point to. I'm not sure that would make a 4-5 minute presentation, but it might if you talk about influance and legacy.
Quote from: Dr. Blasko on December 07, 2013, 12:39:56 PM
Hey guys, I'm taking a digital story class and my final project is basically anything goes. So, I decided to talk about one of my favorite topics, Universal Monsters! It turns out, it was a lot harder than I first thought. The biggest problem is that the project has a time limit of five minutes. Therefore, the narration needs to last about 4 and a half-ish. That is not a lot of time to discuss the topic. I was originally going to cover all of Universal Horror, but I hit the 4:30 mark upon discussing Dracula's Daughter. I then tried restricting it to just the canonical Universal Monsters, but that's a whole other can of worms. I realize that my definition of a "universal monster" will not be the same as everyone else's, but keep in mind, I'm trying to tell people who have probably never seen the films about their history in under five minutes. Regardless, I would like to get some feedback on facts and what not and make sure that it covers what I am trying to cover with accuracy. Disregard misspellings and grammatical issues, I have not addressed those yet. I want to make sure the facts are down first before I move on.
---
Universal Studios celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2012. Although Universal has found most of its success in recent years with big mainstream spectacles like "The Fast and the Furious", there was a time when horror movies were Universal's specialty. Universal would create a world of cherished creatures over the next several decades affectionately known as the Universal Monsters. Although there is plenty of debate as to which monsters fall under this umbrella, there is little doubt as to which monster started the famous lineage. The first horror film produced by Universal was "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" starring Lon Chaney as the deformed hunchback Quasimodo in 1923. It proved to be successful, earning over $3 million to make it Universal's most successful silent film and launching Lon Chaney's film career. It would also provide the formula for horror movies to come, including Universal's next silent hit "The Phantom of the Opera" in 1925. "Phantom" also starred Lon Chaney, this time as the disfigured Erik. Chaney's makeup has become a cultural icon in the movie industry and serves as a reminder for why Lon Chaney was known as "The Man of 1,000 Faces".
Universal's first film to feature a famous monster in the sound era was 1931's "Dracula", directed by Tod Browning and starring Bela Lugosi in leading role,
Dracula was a financial and critical success. Audience members were amazed, even fainting in shock at some screenings. Despite the many adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel, Bela Lugosi's portrayal of the world's most famous vampire has become the image most people think of when someone says the name Dracula.
1931 also saw the release of "Frankenstein", directed by James Whale. This would be the first of many horror films to star Boris Karloff, making him a household name. Lugosi was originally slated to play the role of the Monster in "Frankenstein" before the role went to Karloff. Whether it was because Lugosi did not want to play a role with no lines or because James Whale thought he was not suited for the role is still up for debate to this day. Regardless, Karloff and Lugosi's names would become intertwined for years to come.
In 1932, Boris Karloff who would play another famous Universal Monster, this time in 1932's "The Mummy". The film has proven to be important in Universal's history, as it was not only successful in its own right, but would live on through a successful remake franchise in the late 1990's through the 2000's, more than 75 years after the original's release.
Lugosi and Karloff, Universal's hardest working and most marketable horror stars, would take 1933 off from Universal's horror cycle, but Claude Rains was willing and able to fill in with "The Invisible Man", directed by "Frankenstein" director James Whale. This ground-breaking film was another runaway success for the studio, launching Rains's career in the same way Lugosi and Karloff saw the start of their careers.
The next film to feature a new Universal Monster was also the first sequel to a Universal Horror film, "The Bride of Frankenstein" in 1935. Colin Clive returned as Dr. Frankenstein, while Boris Karloff resumed the role that made him famous. Despite being the sequel to what is considered to be a classic and near perfect horror film, "The Bride of Frankenstein" wowed audiences and critics alike and is considered to be one of, if not the greatest Universal horror movie, thanks in no small part to director James Whale and the addition of actor Ernest Thesiger as the diabolical Dr. Pretorious. This film also marks the debut of the first and only female member of the Universal Monster family, The Bride of Frankenstein, played by Elsa Lanchester.
Several years would pass before another monster debuted that would join Universal's horror star canon. Although Universal had several successes with films like "The Son of Frankenstein" and "The Mummy's Hand", it would not be until "The Wolf Man" premiered in 1941 that Universal would find not only a new monster, but its new horror star. Larry Talbot, "The Wolf Man's" sympathetic protagonist, was played by Lon Chaney Jr. Much like his father who portrayed monsters in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and "Phantom of the Opera", Lon Chaney Jr. would prove to be one of horror's greatest icons. He would go on to become the only actor to play the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's Monster, the Mummy and Count Dracula for Universal
As the 40's winded down, so too did Universal's horror cycle. After a run of successful sequels, Universal tried something different, bidding farewell to their monsters with "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein", the 1948 classic that teamed up the famous comedic duo with the Frankenstein Monster, the Wolf Man and Dracula, portrayed by Bela Lugosi for the first time since 1931. Ironically, this would lead to a string of sequels, featuring Bud Abbott and Lou Costello with other monsters, including the Invisible Man, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and the Mummy.
With the 1950's, Universal, like so many other studios at the time, became more interested in science fiction. Although there were several memorable films throughout the decade, only one monster from the period has been added to the Universal Monster canon. Universal released "Creature from the Black Lagoon" in 1954, a throwback to the Universal horror films of yesteryear, with the added twist of 3D. Although monsters like the Metaluna Mutant and the Mole People are occasionally featured in Universal merchandise, the Creature or Gill-man as some call him is the only one to consistently be featured alongside the most famous monsters from Universal's golden era.
Universal never stopped making horror movies, but they are nowhere as prominent as they once were. Movies like Psycho, Jaws, The Thing, Tremors, Jurassic Park and their remakes of Dawn of the Dead, King Kong and The Mummy show there is still that spark for the genre that helped create the powerhouse that is Universal. Perhaps the next addition to the Universal Monster family is just around the corner.
---
I also tend to go overboard on little details. For example, here is the opening of the video, inspired by Dracula:
Monsters Title (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41XOjyKoalw#ws)
Thanks for watching and reading! Perhaps I will share the first draft that covered a lot more of Universal's horror history sometime.
Actually, it was Carl Jr that got the monster films made. Carl Sr disliked them, but as long as they made money, he tolerated them.
At the time, "Hunchback" wasn't seen as a horror film, but a big-budget adaptation of a classic novel. Quasimodo is such a pivotal character, though, that it was imperative that audiences believe in him. Chaney was chosen specifically because he could accomplish the make-up, as well as the performance. "Phantom" was seen as more of a horror film, but was also approached more as a literary adaptation, too. It wasn't quite as successful as "Hunchback," though. That's why it was re-edited and re-released in 1929, and again in 1930, with dubbed sound and dialog.
"Dracula" was meant to be another big-budget literary adaptation, but the stock market crash of 1929 and the Depression meant Universal had to scale back the budget. While the scenes set in Transylvania give an idea of what the film was originally intended to be, the rest of the film is a mostly static adaptation of the 1927 Broadway play. You might want to mention the Spanish "Dracula," as it's the only one of the monster films to get a foreign-market adaptation. It's also considered a technically superior production to the English-speaking version.
You might want to mention that the Metaluna Mutant is from "This Island Earth," a sci-fi classic 2 1/2 years in the making. And, although it wasn't very successful, you should mention "The Wolfman" remake along with 1999's "The Mummy."
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Count_Zirock on December 07, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
Actually, it was Carl Jr that got the monster films made. Carl Sr disliked them, but as long as they made money, he tolerated them.
At the time, "Hunchback" wasn't seen as a horror film, but a big-budget adaptation of a classic novel. Quasimodo is such a pivotal character, though, that it was imperative that audiences believe in him. Chaney was chosen specifically because he could accomplish the make-up, as well as the performance. "Phantom" was seen as more of a horror film, but was also approached more as a literary adaptation, too. It wasn't quite as successful as "Hunchback," though. That's why it was re-edited and re-released in 1929, and again in 1930, with dubbed sound and dialog.
"Dracula" was meant to be another big-budget literary adaptation, but the stock market crash of 1929 and the Depression meant Universal had to scale back the budget. While the scenes set in Transylvania give an idea of what the film was originally intended to be, the rest of the film is a mostly static adaptation of the 1927 Broadway play. You might want to mention the Spanish "Dracula," as it's the only one of the monster films to get a foreign-market adaptation. It's also considered a technically superior production to the English-speaking version.
You might want to mention that the Metaluna Mutant is from "This Island Earth," a sci-fi classic 2 1/2 years in the making. And, although it wasn't very successful, you should mention "The Wolfman" remake along with 1999's "The Mummy."
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
I was trying more to just match the card itself, but its good to know and I can add a "Jr" there.
Although it may not have been seen as a horror film at the time, it is extremely important in the history of the monsters as a whole and I feel should be addressed if just to give background for the films that would follow.
I did actually talk about Spanish Dracula in the previous versions, but I cut it for time. Although I enjoy the film and wish more people knew about it (see my published article on essential horror movies), it has only come to prominence over the past few decades and made the most sense to cut for time.
---
"It was during the 1930's that not only did Universal create what would be known as the Universal Monsters, but also made the transition to sound horror films. Dracula, was the first of these films, debuting in 1931. Directed by Tod Browning, best known at the time for his silent film collaborations with Lon Chaney, the movie was a financial and critical success. Audience members were amazed, even fainting in shock in some cases. Despite the many adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel, Bela Lugosi's portrayal of the titular vampire has become the image most people think of when someone says the name Dracula. Universal simultaneously released a Spanish version of Dracula the same year, using the same script and sets, but an all Spanish-speaking cast. This film, largely unknown until the advent of home video, has become recognized in recent years by many as a film equal to, if not greater than, its English counterpart."
---
The same goes for This Island Earth. I mentioned it by name along with Tarantula, The Mole People, etc. but again, when cutting for time, it was best to just briefly mention the monster itself since that is what the video will be about.
---
"With the 1950's, Universal, like so many other studios at the time, became more interested in science fiction films. Although there were several memorable films throughout the decade, such as "This Island Earth" "Tarantula" in 1955 and "The Mole People" in 1956, only one monster from the period has been added to the Universal Monster canon. Universal released "Creature from the Black Lagoon" in 1954, a throwback to the Universal horror films of yesteryear, with the added twist of 3D. Although monsters like the Metaluna Mutant and the Mole People are occasionally featured in Universal merchandise, the Creature or Gill-man as some call him is the only one to consistently be featured alongside the most famous monsters from Universal's golden era."
---
I honestly forgot all about the Wolfman remake lol Which in turn reminded me of Van Helsing. Terrible movie, but does show that the legacy is alive at least and should be mentioned. Thanks for the advice! :)
"Van Helsing" deserves to be ignored and forgotten, though.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Count_Zirock on December 07, 2013, 04:06:41 PM
"Van Helsing" deserves to be ignored and forgotten, though.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
VERY true lol
Here's the finished video. As you can see just from looking at the "cut" script, I had to cut even more out to be under 5 minutes. Overall, am I happy with the video? Eh, I guess so. I met the requirements from the professor (who honestly doesn't know anything about digital storytelling and it shows). Perhaps one day I will do what I originally intended and do an actual analysis of Universal's horror history, but for what it is, I'm happy with it. If I do a more fleshed out one, I will add video as well (no video was allowed for this project). Enjoy! Or don't. This is America after all :P
Monsters - A Digital Story (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK7o42f6FdU#ws)
I like it. Very tight and informative. It may not be what you wanted to do, but I think you did really well for 4:56.
I agree, you packed a lot of information in there. Well done!
In the the words of Dracula himself, "Excellent, Mr. Orr, excellent!"
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
Not bad. Pretty good, actually.
Aside from a few grammatical errors and pronunciation glitches, it was a rather professional appearing production.
Your chronology and general information all seemed correct.
Of course, you relied on some excellent advisers.
One thing I found a little distracting: an almost excessive use of panning, tilting, and zooming.
I understand your desire for motion in a video. However, twelve or more tilt shots and almost two dozen shots pulling in or out is maybe a bit much. I found my head nodding along with the images on the screen. A fade in and/or out shot of the images might have worked better.
The blackouts for Dracula's quote and Lou's "Hey Abbott" yell almost made me think I lost the video portion of the presentation.
The narration was pretty good.
Losing the passive voice would help the narration move along.
Active voice narration adds more authority.
"Winded down" and "like" are probably not the words you really wanted to use.
The past tense of the transitive verb "wind" is "wound."
"Like" as an adverb can mean "such as," in informal conversation.
"Such as" is preferred in formal presentation.
This may be an artifact of a regional accent, but "Horror" sounded as if the narrator was saying "Horrr."
On the whole, you created a rather admirable little presentation.
Keep up the good work.
Quote from: Fester on December 09, 2013, 12:03:00 AM
Not bad. Pretty good, actually.
Aside from a few grammatical errors and pronunciation glitches, it was a rather professional appearing production.
Your chronology and general information all seemed correct.
Of course, you relied on some excellent advisers.
One thing I found a little distracting: an almost excessive use of panning, tilting, and zooming.
I understand your desire for motion in a video. However, twelve or more tilt shots and almost two dozen shots pulling in or out is maybe a bit much. I found my head nodding along with the images on the screen. A fade in and/or out shot of the images might have worked better.
The blackouts for Dracula's quote and Lou's "Hey Abbott" yell almost made me think I lost the video portion of the presentation.
The narration was pretty good.
Losing the passive voice would help the narration move along.
Active voice narration adds more authority.
"Winded down" and "like" are probably not the words you really wanted to use.
The past tense of the transitive verb "wind" is "wound."
"Like" as an adverb can mean "such as," in informal conversation.
"Such as" is preferred in formal presentation.
This may be an artifact of a regional accent, but "Horror" sounded as if the narrator was saying "Horrr."
On the whole, you created a rather admirable little presentation.
Keep up the good work.
Has to be very informal, per the requirements, otherwise I would have used a lot different language (see my stories on GPB/NPR), although passive voice is by far preferred for this type of presentation. As far as wound vs. winded, although I traditionally say wound, in this context, for this audience and the southern vernacular, winded is acceptable. I was going to say "came to a close", but again, needed to be much more personal and informal with my narration.
I should have only used one blackout and I would have used none if I could have just used the video, but again, requirements.
I would say more, but I'm realizing most of the critiques come from the requirements I had to follow lol Trust me brother, it would be a completely different video if I had it my way. Narration would be slower too, that's for sure.
Quote from: Dr. Blasko on December 09, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
Has to be very informal, per the requirements, otherwise I would have used a lot different language (see my stories on GPB/NPR), although passive voice is by far preferred for this type of presentation.
I would say more, but I'm realizing most of the critiques come from the requirements I had to follow lol Trust me brother, it would be a completely different video if I had it my way. Narration would be slower too, that's for sure.
Maybe I'm a little unclear on the concept of "digital storytelling."
How does it differ from regular storytelling?
And what, exactly is "storytelling," then?
"I met the requirements from the professor (who honestly doesn't know anything about digital storytelling and it shows)."
So, your instructor eschews clarity of thought and presentation? Sheesh!
GPB/NPR stories?
I recall once reading a Halloween movie guide you did for the school paper.
It was pretty good, as I recall.
Any links? I'd live to read them.
Quote from: Fester on December 09, 2013, 01:43:16 AM
Maybe I'm a little unclear on the concept of "digital storytelling."
How does it differ from regular storytelling?
And what, exactly is "storytelling," then?
"I met the requirements from the professor (who honestly doesn't know anything about digital storytelling and it shows)."
So, your instructor eschews clarity of thought and presentation? Sheesh!
GPB/NPR stories?
I recall once reading a Halloween movie guide you did for the school paper.
It was pretty good, as I recall.
Any links? I'd live to read them.
It's in a digital format. That is literally the only difference according to our textbook (which we used once and the professor decided it confused him). The main principle, based on the professor's definition that only applied 15 years ago when it was in it's infant stages, was essentially a big slideshow with conversational speech. This is why everyone hated the class and he is getting really terrible evaluations from everyone. We literally spent two weeks just watching a tutorial video on a program we barely even used.
Here are the two GPB pieces that ran
https://soundcloud.com/gpbnews/gpb-news-4-30pm-podcast-66 (https://soundcloud.com/gpbnews/gpb-news-4-30pm-podcast-66)
http://www.gpb.org/news/2012/11/05/many-ga-college-students-disengaged-from-election (http://www.gpb.org/news/2012/11/05/many-ga-college-students-disengaged-from-election)
Fun fact, before the college pulled the plug on my tv show, the three of us who did the second story were the cast of the show lol
I also just wrote a paper involving Frankenstein. With all of these projects, I'm a little tired of the Monster haha
Quote from: Count_Zirock on December 07, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
Actually, it was Carl Jr that got the monster films made. Carl Sr disliked them, but as long as they made money, he tolerated them.
At the time, "Hunchback" wasn't seen as a horror film, but a big-budget adaptation of a classic novel. Quasimodo is such a pivotal character, though, that it was imperative that audiences believe in him. Chaney was chosen specifically because he could accomplish the make-up, as well as the performance. "Phantom" was seen as more of a horror film, but was also approached more as a literary adaptation, too. It wasn't quite as successful as "Hunchback," though. That's why it was re-edited and re-released in 1929, and again in 1930, with dubbed sound and dialog.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
That the Hunchback is accepted as a monster, can also be seen in his inclusion as an Aurora lit, as well as a character in "Mad Monster Party". I don't consider the character a monster myhself, and the Disney film made a point that the real monster in their version was Frollo.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on December 11, 2013, 12:42:34 AM
That the Hunchback is accepted as a monster, can also be seen in his inclusion as an Aurora lit, as well as a character in "Mad Monster Party". I don't consider the character a monster myself, and the Disney film made a point that the real monster in their version was Frollo.
I'm not saying he isn't, just that it was never intended to be a horror film, and that Chaney actually played the character sympathetically. But, his horrific appearance and iconic stature have secured him the title of Universal Monster. Not sure how Lon Chaney would react to that, today. Certainly, Erik was far more of a monster than poor Quasimodo.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Haunted hearse on December 11, 2013, 12:42:34 AM
That the Hunchback is accepted as a monster, can also be seen in his inclusion as an Aurora lit, as well as a character in "Mad Monster Party". I don't consider the character a monster myhself, and the Disney film made a point that the real monster in their version was Frollo.
You could also make the same argument about the Frankenstein Monster (in fact, that's what that paper I wrote about concerned, "what makes a monster"). Even Creature. Is he a monster? He just wants to be loved! :'(
Still, I count Quasimodo personally, even if just as the "foundation" for what would come. If Erik counts as one, I don't see why Quasimodo can't. But that's just me.
Quote from: Count_Zirock on December 11, 2013, 01:33:02 AM
I'm not saying he isn't, just that it was never intended to be a horror film, and that Chaney actually played the character sympathetically. But, his horrific appearance and iconic stature have secured him the title of Universal Monster. Not sure how Lon Chaney would react to that, today. Certainly, Erik was far more of a monster than poor Quasimodo.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
I actually agree with what you wrote.
My home computer sucks when viewing videos, and so I finally caught your short at the library. In the short, I think you said the Bride was the only female monster. I'm wondering if Holden in "Dracula's Daughter", wouldn't qualify as a classic monster? Also, if time permited, it might be fun to include the Monsters revival in the 1950's and 60's, including "The Munsters".
Quote from: Haunted hearse on December 11, 2013, 04:55:42 PM
My home computer sucks when viewing videos, and so I finally caught your short at the library. In the short, I think you said the Bride was the only female monster. I'm wondering if Holden in "Dracula's Daughter", wouldn't qualify as a classic monster? Also, if time permited, it might be fun to include the Monsters revival in the 1950's and 60's, including "The Munsters".
In relation to what Universal markets as consistently as their monster family, the Bride is the only one. When the video was much longer and I discussed every horror movie, there was a significant part about Dracula's Daughter. But since I had to cut everything that was not directly related to the main monsters, it had to go.
Quote from: Dr. Blasko on December 11, 2013, 07:03:51 PM
In relation to what Universal markets as consistently as their monster family, the Bride is the only one. When the video was much longer and I discussed every horror movie, there was a significant part about Dracula's Daughter. But since I had to cut everything that was not directly related to the main monsters, it had to go.
Hate to disagree, Doc, but she (Drac's daughter) is related to the good count (definitely a main monster).
Quote from: Mord on December 14, 2013, 12:00:09 AM
Hate to disagree, Doc, but she (Drac's daughter) is related to the good count (definitely a main monster).
He's right, though, as far as marketing and recognition goes. "Dracula's Daughter" rarely gets its due as the direct sequel to "Dracula." We've even had a Chaney/Count Alucard licensed figure, but nothing for Countess Zaleska.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Count_Zirock on December 14, 2013, 12:04:27 AM
He's right, though, as far as marketing and recognition goes. "Dracula's Daughter" rarely gets its due as the direct sequel to "Dracula." We've even had a Chaney/Count Alucard licensed figure, but nothing for Countess Zaleska.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
I don't know about a licensed Zaleska figure, but we might get one none the less.
Quote from: Mord on December 14, 2013, 12:06:55 AM
I don't know about a licensed Zaleska figure, but we might get one none the less.
Got my fingers crossed for that one, too! ;D
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mord on December 14, 2013, 12:00:09 AM
Hate to disagree, Doc, but she (Drac's daughter) is related to the good count (definitely a main monster).
I meant related to Universal's definition of the main monster family, not literal familial ties lol If I ever do a full length video (which I am considering), she will be mentioned.
Although this may be a bit later (I don't know when your assignment was due), I think you should at least give WEREWOLF OF LONDON a mention. It actually was the movie that gave us the werewolf as a classic monster, even if Chaney's film WAS the more popular.
Have you gotten a grade yet?
Quote from: Zackuth on December 21, 2013, 05:24:47 PM
Have you gotten a grade yet?
Yeah, don't leave us hanging, Doc!
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk
That was an awesome documentary. I would love to see you expand it and talk about the Monster legacies.