Is there even any? Seriously, no models, masks, toys... was he even considered a Universal Monster in the 50's through 80's?
Just a questions. If anyone has any ideas as to why there was little to no merch or if they have any pictures of actual merchandise to share of him here would be the place.
Perhaps manufacturers considered it difficult to sell the idea of a dude in bandages and a smoking jacket or overcoat to children, so it wasn't worth paying a license for said character?
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 21, 2015, 11:13:49 AM
Perhaps manufacturers considered it difficult to sell the idea of a dude in bandages and a smoking jacket or overcoat to children, so it wasn't worth paying a license for said character?
But the Hunchback seems like a way harder character to sell (Ugly Renaissance Man) yet they did him pretty well. But now in the present it's the opposite. I guess they don't won't to sell a disabled man as a monster.
This whole subject also takes me to the Bride. She wasn't really marketed until the 90's yet Aurora did a whole model of her. I get her more though. She had like five minutes of film history.
You're probably right about The Hunchback. If you'll notice there were a lot of manufacturers that would avoid Dracula in the 60's. Soakies, Marx, Mon-stirs, Anchor Hocking glasses, etc. I am not sure why---but I think it was because he was more human in appearance....and drank blood. Someties marketers come up with weird ideas.
In the 70's..Human Torch was replaced by Herbie for fear of kids lighting themselves on fire to copy his powers.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 21, 2015, 11:40:07 AM
If you'll notice there were a lot of manufacturers that would avoid Dracula in the 60's.
Probably because of Bela Jr.
Earliest known Invisible Man collectible. Feb. 1934
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/ntsAAMXQxVZRCuWE/$(KGrHqR,!hgFDVNuPh8pBRCuWD5OFw~~60_35.JPG)
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 21, 2015, 11:40:07 AM
You're probably right about The Hunchback. If you'll notice there were a lot of manufacturers that would avoid Dracula in the 60's. Soakies, Marx, Mon-stirs, Anchor Hocking glasses, etc. I am not sure why---but I think it was because he was more human in appearance....and drank blood. Someties marketers come up with weird ideas.
In the 70's..Human Torch was replaced by Herbie for fear of kids lighting themselves on fire to copy his powers.
Dracula was gotten rid of because of the Lugosi likeness lawsuit.
H.E.R.B.I.E. being made to prevent kids lighting themselves on fire is a complete myth. He was created for the cartoon because (at the time) the people making the cartoon didn't have the rights to the character of the Human Torch.
It is an interesting question. The monster craze in the 60s was very inspired by the Shock Theatre package, which definitely included THE INVISIBLE MAN. As a "monster kid" in the 70s and 80s, I never once thought of him as part of that iconic lineup though because he was never included in marketing. By then, though, neither was Hunchback, much. There was still a lot of UniMon merchandise in the 80s, and it never seemed to include either Hunchback or Invisible.
I would guess that the rise of the Bride has something to do with feminism (for lack of a better way to put it). Once upon a time, toy manufacturers would never even have considered that a girl may want to play with monster toys and the ongoing thought was that boys didn't want to play with female figures. Look at the classic action figure lines and there's usually just one token girl. My memory seems to remember though that most of the Pepsi, 7-11, etc merchandising in the 80s on always included the Bride. I would imagine that at some point toy companies realized that they could sell her to female monster fans. My wife loves my toy collection, but doesn't buy much herself. When she does, though, it always tends to be Bride merch.
Quote from: The Red Death 30 on November 21, 2015, 04:35:01 PM
It is an interesting question. The monster craze in the 60s was very inspired by the Shock Theatre package, which definitely included THE INVISIBLE MAN. As a "monster kid" in the 70s and 80s, I never once thought of him as part of that iconic lineup though because he was never included in marketing. By then, though, neither was Hunchback, much. There was still a lot of UniMon merchandise in the 80s, and it never seemed to include either Hunchback or Invisible.
I would guess that the rise of the Bride has something to do with feminism (for lack of a better way to put it). Once upon a time, toy manufacturers would never even have considered that a girl may want to play with monster toys and the ongoing thought was that boys didn't want to play with female figures. Look at the classic action figure lines and there's usually just one token girl. My memory seems to remember though that most of the Pepsi, 7-11, etc merchandising in the 80s on always included the Bride. I would imagine that at some point toy companies realized that they could sell her to female monster fans. My wife loves my toy collection, but doesn't buy much herself. When she does, though, it always tends to be Bride merch.
Yes, the Bride seemed to replace the Phantom in the main six line. And I guess Invisible Man replaced the Hunchback, and The Phantom Replaced Mr. Hyde. or something
While the I.M didn't look monstrous he was way worse than any of them. Remember the train derailment he caused and how giddy he was at killing scores of innocents?
At minimum a monster in mind and SUPER villain all the way. Frank and Creach just look much cooler.
Quote from: Wicked Lester on November 21, 2015, 05:52:01 PM
Frank and Creach just look much cooler.
Am I the only one who thought he looked super cool in his get up?
Plus the same Super Villain idea could be said for the Phantom and yet he was an instant monster in merchandise. I guess the Phantom just has the awesomeness of like 20 Invisible Men. It seems like Universal always knew Invisible was a monster. They had him meet Abbott and Costello for crying out loud. That's the defining monster moment.
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on November 21, 2015, 12:19:06 PM
Dracula was gotten rid of because of the Lugosi likeness lawsuit.
H.E.R.B.I.E. being made to prevent kids lighting themselves on fire is a complete myth. He was created for the cartoon because (at the time) the people making the cartoon didn't have the rights to the character of the Human Torch.
I didn't care for Herbie, and I asked one of the creators of the show in the 1970's at a comic book convention in Los Angeles, and was told it was because of the whole fire thing being a danger to the kids. However, he may have just said that since there were legalities regarding the character, which had to do with a proposed pilot film for the Characters being done by Universal. The pilot was unrealized, and maybe they just didn't want fans of the series at the time it wasn't because they couldn't use the character, but rather they had made a decision for the good of the children.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on November 21, 2015, 11:00:30 PM
I didn't care for Herbie, and I asked one of the creators of the show in the 1970's at a comic book convention in Los Angeles, and was told it was because of the whole fire thing being a danger to the kids. However, he may have just said that since there were legalities regarding the character, which had to do with a proposed pilot film for the Characters being done by Universal. The pilot was unrealized, and maybe they just didn't want fans of the series at the time it wasn't because they couldn't use the character, but rather they had made a decision for the good of the children.
Yeah, the article (single article that I found so you could easily still be right) says that employees may have lied for PR benefits
Sexism seems evident in the choice of female monsters. Not even a monster in her own right, "The Bride" was more of a victim than a monster.
I think a better choice would have been an active monster like Dracula's Daughter. She never got the respect I thought she deserved.
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on November 21, 2015, 11:31:05 AM
This whole subject also takes me to the Bride. She wasn't really marketed until the 90's yet Aurora did a whole model of her. I get her more though. She had like five minutes of film history.
As did Karloff's Mummy and look how iconic that character/image is.
Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 21, 2015, 11:40:07 AM
In the 70's..Human Torch was replaced by Herbie for fear of kids lighting themselves on fire to copy his powers.
You're probably right about that. ;)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.moviefone.com/media/2010/09/human-torch-playset.jpg)
Quote from: Gory Glenn on November 24, 2015, 11:34:28 AM
You're probably right about that. ;)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.moviefone.com/media/2010/09/human-torch-playset.jpg)
:laugh:
I grew up in the '60s and early '70s and every kid I knew had more sense than to do something that stupid (like setting themselves
on fire!?). We played with Thingmakers and other potentially dangerous toys and learned quickly not to do idiotic things or.. guess what?.. IT FREAKIN' HURTS! ::)
So it begs the question.. did kids get dumber in the '70s, or did
rulemaking busybodies infect society with more of their BS? Hmmm.. yep, it's the latter. ;)
Quote from: horrorhunter on November 24, 2015, 02:27:45 PM
:laugh:
I grew up in the '60s and early '70s and every kid I knew had more sense than to do something that stupid (like setting themselves on fire!?). We played with Thingmakers and other potentially dangerous toys and learned quickly not to do idiotic things or.. guess what?.. IT FREAKIN' HURTS! ::)
So it begs the question.. did kids get dumber in the '70s, or did rulemaking busybodies infect society with more of their BS? Hmmm.. yep, it's the latter. ;)
I think it was guys like Irwin Mainway they were worried about. ;D
(http://www.kcconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/irwinmainway.jpg)(http://hotoffpress.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/consumerprobe.jpg?w=614)(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8t9xxRfd01qebvfho1_500.jpg)
The first Invisible Man toy I can remember was the Horizon vinyl kit from the late eighties. Anything before that?
Quote from: horrorhunter on November 24, 2015, 02:27:45 PM
:laugh:
I grew up in the '60s and early '70s and every kid I knew had more sense than to do something that stupid (like setting themselves on fire!?). We played with Thingmakers and other potentially dangerous toys and learned quickly not to do idiotic things or.. guess what?.. IT FREAKIN' HURTS! ::)
So it begs the question.. did kids get dumber in the '70s, or did rulemaking busybodies infect society with more of their BS? Hmmm.. yep, it's the latter. ;)
Of course, the real reason the Human Torch wasn't used in the 1978 FF cartoon is because the character was tied up legally for another proposed show which was never produced. Here's the link to the IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241100/combined (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241100/combined)
My comment about the
rulemaking busybodies was really aimed at the overall change in the '70s and '80s which saw storytelling hamstrung by the attitude that violence in entertainment would convince kids to go out and do stupid things. This led to the cutesy crap in cartoons like Godzooky, and
The Smurfs. Me and the kids I knew were exposed to a lot of entertainment where people were punching and shooting each other like superhero comics, Warner Bros cartoons, and most movies, but it never made me or any of the people I knew want to go out and break the law. On the contrary, it instilled in us the difference between right and wrong, heroes and villains, and being a law abiding person or an outlaw. I hated to see things get watered down so because a few overly cautious people had their way and made "punching the villain" taboo in certain entertainment. Most logical folks are of the opinion that anyone stupid enough to purposely break the law and hurt others will do it regardless of what they see in a cartoon, even when they're an impressionable kid. During childhood we need to be grounded with a clear sense of right and wrong, and the villain needs to be subdued until they're carted off to the pokey. If the story calls for a good brawl between heroes and villains, so be it. Violent characters have always been a common story telling device in most entertainment. BTW, I hate
The Smurfs,
The Snorkels and the other cutesy shows which proliferated the '80s cartoon world. We went from
Jonny Quest and
The Herculoids in the '60s to that dreck in the '80s. Okay, sorry for the soapbox routine. Through venting now, back to our regularly scheduled monstering.
Quote from: Mord on November 24, 2015, 04:19:12 PM
The first Invisible Man toy I can remember was the Horizon vinyl kit from the late eighties. Anything before that?
Nothing you'd call a "toy".
Quote from: Monsters For Sale on November 24, 2015, 10:56:04 AM
Sexism seems evident in the choice of female monsters. Not even a monster in her own right, "The Bride" was more of a victim than a monster.
I think a better choice would have been an active monster like Dracula's Daughter. She never got the respect I thought she deserved.
While she was not monstrous in her actions, she was a supernatural creature brought back from the dead so she is a monster per se, while invisible man is only monstrous in his behavior and is just a normal human with a complexion problem, more of a superhero/villain with a science mishap origin.
Clearly Hunchback (and possibly the Phantom) are no longer marketable because portraying the disfigured as a monster is no longer acceptable and they are just regular humans as well. Franky, Wolfy, Mummy and Drac are all supernatural creatures and certainly qualify as monsters, while Creech is a natural creature so I don't think qualifies as a monster any more than a leopard or crocodile does.
Quote from: ravenloft on November 24, 2015, 06:34:03 PM
Clearly Hunchback (and possibly the Phantom) are no longer marketable because portraying the disfigured as a monster is no longer acceptable and they are just regular humans as well. Franky, Wolfy, Mummy and Drac are all supernatural creatures and certainly qualify as monsters, while Creech is a natural creature so I don't think qualifies as a monster any more than a leopard or crocodile does.
See, I hate all this, Phantom is misunderstood just because he's a human crap. He's evil. He murdered people and took glee in it. Frankenstein never meant to hurt anyone but he's fine to call a monster just because he's supernatural. Also the Creature is definitely supernatural, even if he's just basically an animal he's still an animal that could never exist.
two different kinds of monster are being talked about here and you are blurring the lines.
Yes Ted Bundy or any other real world serial killer is a monster, as are spree killers, mass murderers, terrorists, child rapists etc.
Is Phantom a monster in this sense? Perhaps, he kills many with a chandelier in the original story and kills others by garrote so he fits the sociopathic type of monster well. But he certainly isn't a supernatural monster although he tries to masquerade as a ghost.
Supernatural monsters are monsters in the fairy tale sense, they do not exist in the real world as much as we would like to be blood sucking immortals, wolf out or raise the dead.
Creature is just a undiscovered animal, no different from any unknown to science and only a "monster" because he is anthropomorphic, and in the cryptozoological sense similar to bigfoot.
Quote from: ravenloft on November 24, 2015, 08:46:01 PM
But he certainly isn't a supernatural monster although he tries to masquerade as a ghost.
Hard to say on that. His deformity isn't exactly a real life deformity, to my knowledge.
But I'm not arguing on the whole if he technically is a monster or not. I'm just talking about the politically correct scale. And I would say that he can be grouped as a monster without being offensive because he's a serial killer. But Quasimodo can't really be grouped as one by this way of thinking.
I would submit a much different theory as both monsters seemed to fade out of the main Universal lineup around the same time. I think that the two being from the silent Era has some impact on that as they are just not movies most people are willing to watch anymore, whereas shows like Svengookie still keep yhe "talkie" Universals going.
I would, also, submit that both have been wussified (yes, I made up that word for this srgument) for the modern audience. To a large number of people Hunchback is a tragic hero from a Disney movie and the Phantom is some guy who sings on Broadway.
Quote from: The Red Death 30 on November 24, 2015, 09:38:21 PM
I would, also, submit that both have been wussified (yes, I made up that word for this srgument) for the modern audience. To a large number of people Hunchback is a tragic hero from a Disney movie and the Phantom is some guy who sings on Broadway.
Thanks, Andrew Lloyd Webber. By the way, I don't think the Phantom faded out into a lesser role until the 90's whereas The Hunchback was pretty much gone by 1980. Also, I'd go and say that all the monsters were wussified by modern media, yet somehow the wuss Hunchback and Phantom are the iconic ones now.
Quote from: The Red Death 30 on November 24, 2015, 09:38:21 PM
I would, also, submit that both have been wussified
They did the same thing with Kong.
Quote from: Mike Scott on November 24, 2015, 10:20:59 PM
They did the same thing with Kong.
Which time? 'Cause as an answer I could (probably controversially) accept every movie other than the first one. I'd also like to say at this time that my 3 favorite monsters other than Frank are the Phantom, Hunchback, and Kong. Lucky me. >:(
The first monster toy I ever owned was the 80 Remco Phantom. Picked it out myself at Kmart when I was 5. Phantoms always had a soft spot for me.
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on November 24, 2015, 10:54:06 PM
Which time?
I was thinking of the 2005 movie, but yeah, anything after 1933.
Quote from: Mike Scott on November 24, 2015, 11:26:34 PM
I was thinking of the 2005 movie, but yeah, anything after 1933.
How bout just after the first film? Ever heard of Son of Kong (1933)?
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on November 25, 2015, 08:10:29 AM
How bout just after the first film? Ever heard of Son of Kong (1933)?
I like SOK, if only for the animation!
Quote from: Mike Scott on November 25, 2015, 09:09:49 AM
I like SOK, if only for the animation!
I liked it for one very different reason. Because I grew up with King Kong. I first saw it when I was in preschool and it left a huge impression on me. It would only be this year when I would see Son of Kong and well... it felt so good to see Carl Denham, the Skipper, and the rest again. I loved it up until the parts that included claymation. Then it was enjoyable, but not King Kong.
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on November 25, 2015, 08:10:29 AM
How bout just after the first film? Ever heard of Son of Kong (1933)?
Mike did write 1933, and
SOK is more cute than ferocious...
Quote from: Allhallowsday on November 27, 2015, 03:33:25 PM
Mike did write 1933, and SOK is more cute than ferocious...
Son of Kong was 1933. Mike wrote every movie after 1933. See the confliction?
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on November 27, 2015, 03:56:54 PM
Son of Kong was 1933. Mike wrote every movie after 1933.
I intended SOK to be included. No KONG fan should be without it! :)
Quote from: Mike Scott on November 27, 2015, 06:20:21 PM
I intended SOK to be included. No KONG fan should be without it! :)
I never said any Kong fan should be without it. I said that Kong was wussified in it is all.
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on November 27, 2015, 08:14:00 PM
I never said any Kong fan should be without it. I said that Kong was wussified in it is all.
Kong wasn't wussified, because he wasn't in it.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on November 28, 2015, 10:50:42 AM
Kong wasn't wussified, because he wasn't in it.
He was in it in the same way that Dracula was in Dracula's Daughter. If that makes any sense.
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on November 28, 2015, 07:51:47 PM
He was in it in the same way that Dracula was in Dracula's Daughter. If that makes any sense.
Well, Carl talks about how bad he feels for what he did to Kong, and is dealing with consequences for the damages that Kong did. You also have a younger primate with the son, and his not being as hostile has to do with not having to have spent years of life and death battles. I like the idea they decided to do a different film, over a thinly disguised remake.
Quote from: Haunted hearse on November 28, 2015, 09:17:08 PM
Well, Carl talks about how bad he feels for what he did to Kong, and is dealing with consequences for the damages that Kong did. You also have a younger primate with the son, and his not being as hostile has to do with not having to have spent years of life and death battles. I like the idea they decided to do a different film, over a thinly disguised remake.
Again, I don't dislike it. It just does wussify Kong. The creators said they didn't have enough money to make a serious film (especially when you follow Kong Kong) so they settled for a slightly silly one.
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on November 21, 2015, 05:58:45 PM
Am I the only one who thought he looked super cool in his get up?
No, you're not the only one — I found Mr. Invis as captivating as the other Universal monsters, so it was a bit perplexing why more I.M. merch wasn't available...
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on November 21, 2015, 11:08:08 AM
Is there even any? Seriously, no models, masks, toys... was he even considered a Universal Monster in the 50's through 80's?
Just a questions. If anyone has any ideas as to why there was little to no merch or if they have any pictures of actual merchandise to share of him here would be the place.
If the merch was confined to the '50s through the '80s, there was an Invisible Man mask available in the early '60s, but it didn't sell well. (No, this isn't a lead-in for a joke about nobody buying the mask because they couldn't see it.) And in 1981 Esco Products released their Invisible Man resin statue, which can be seen in some detail here:
http://www.collectiondx.com/toy_review/esco/invisible_man (http://www.collectiondx.com/toy_review/esco/invisible_man)
Rather than masks or statues, in many ways it seems that the Invisible Man would have been better-suited for such items as the Jaymar monster jigsaw puzzles or maybe one of the monster board games, where the right imagery — perhaps showing him unwrapping a portion of his head in his lab (a bit less than was unwrapped on the mag cover Mike posted) — would have been quite striking. (There actually was an Invisible Man board game released by Bell Toys in 1959, based on a 1958 UK TV series.)
(http://images.ttcdn.co/media/i/product/54239-5d3c89e69ac649d78e0742339c955113.jpeg?size=2000)
Famous Monsters of Filmland could have possibly helped spur some I.M. merch interest if they'd featured him on one of their covers; just imagine what Basil Gogos could have done with him. And Universal didn't give him as big a push as they could have. They released their first Frankenstein sequel four years after their initial Frank offering, but waited seven years before releasing an Invisible Man sequel. This alone didn't likely contribute to the character's comparative lack of rank among other Universal monsters, though, since it took Universal
eight years to release a second Mummy movie and the delay obviously didn't seem to hamper the Mummy's merch marketability in later years. Universal did of course eventually release five Invisible Man films — along with one Invisible Woman film — and six Mummy films. But Frankenstein again got top priority, appearing in eight of their films.
Despite the lack of Invisible Man merchandise it remains a great film with a fascinating central character. Hard to go wrong with H.G. Wells characters.
Wow Carbon, I did not know about that board game, very cool to see! Thank you.
Quote from: carbon on December 03, 2015, 12:53:25 AMUniversal didn't give him as big a push as they could have. They released their first Frankenstein sequel four years after their initial Frank offering, but waited seven years before releasing an Invisible Man sequel. This alone didn't likely contribute to the character's comparative lack of rank among other Universal monsters, though, since it took Universal eight years to release a second Mummy movie and the delay obviously didn't seem to hamper the Mummy's merch marketability in later years. Universal did of course eventually release five Invisible Man films — along with one Invisible Woman film — and six Mummy films. But Frankenstein again got top priority, appearing in eight of their films.
I also saw this oldish film Porky Pig cartoon that came out before The Invisible Man Returns (clearly). In it the studio is being haunted by a Phantom and the question Frankenstein about it. Then Porky Pig comes at in the most racist attire possible and discovers that the Phantom is actually the Invisible Man who is pissed he never got a sequel.
Serious, this was a Looney Tunes cartoon
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on December 03, 2015, 06:11:35 AM
I also saw this oldish film Porky Pig cartoon that came out before The Invisible Man Returns (clearly). In it the studio is being haunted by a Phantom and the question Frankenstein about it. Then Porky Pig comes at in the most racist attire possible and discovers that the Phantom is actually the Invisible Man who is pissed he never got a sequel.
Serious, this was a Looney Tunes cartoon
Funny, Porky Pig is Warner Bros., a Universal competitor.
I had this vinyl LP when I was a kid. Listened to it a lot! :)
(http://i0.wp.com/www.retroist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Invisible-Man-The-Wonderland-Imagination-Theatre.jpg?fit=770%2C999)
Quote from: Monsters For Sale on December 03, 2015, 10:35:55 AM
Funny, Porky Pig is Warner Bros., a Universal competitor.
One of the Warner Bros. Golden Collection sets has a disc dedicated to Hollywood caricatures in their cartoons. It seems just about any Hollywood star or character was fair game for lampoon regardless of their studio affiliation.
A few pages back there is a discussion about political correctness and monsters. It reminded me of a discussion years ago on the Hobbytalk forum. Someone posed a question about a non-politically correct model kit. I thought the poster was going to talk about the Hunchback (this was before the Polar Lights' "Bellringer" flap) because of how it portrayed a handicapped individual being tortured. Instead he was addressing "The Witch", because of how it unfairly stereotypes witches and wiccans...
Quote from: ChrisW on December 09, 2015, 01:09:45 PM
One of the Warner Bros. Golden Collection sets has a disc dedicated to Hollywood caricatures in their cartoons. It seems just about any Hollywood star or character was fair game for lampoon regardless of their studio affiliation.
A few pages back there is a discussion about political correctness and monsters. It reminded me of a discussion years ago on the Hobbytalk forum. Someone posed a question about a non-politically correct model kit. I thought the poster was going to talk about the Hunchback (this was before the Polar Lights' "Bellringer" flap) because of how it portrayed a handicapped individual being tortured. Instead he was addressing "The Witch", because of how it unfairly stereotypes witches and wiccans...
Yeah, I remember that Witch/Hunchback thing (well actually I just remember you saying that). But my point was that they had Invisible in the same short with Frankenstein AND they referenced the Phantom of the Opera.
Reviving this thread, there was at least one vintage Invisible Man mask. It being from Bert Wheeler's Hollywood Magic Shop. They were exclusive to there in the 60's. They weren't licensed by Universal either, as can be seen.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AGdzGIJtYnI/TlbDS-vKH6I/AAAAAAAABl4/SLdhVEjOa4c/s1600/BertWheelerHollywoodMagicCatalog_pg04-5.jpg)
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/c1cd/qsnjapdrsljcfgn6g.jpg)
I'm not sure if that thing the ad claims about the glasses making the wearer seem see-through is actually true or not. I'm gonna take a guess the answer would be "not very".
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on October 05, 2020, 02:43:24 PM
Reviving this thread, there was at least one vintage Invisible Man mask. It being from Bert Wheeler's Hollywood Magic Shop. They were exclusive to there in the 60's. They weren't licensed by Universal either, as can be seen.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AGdzGIJtYnI/TlbDS-vKH6I/AAAAAAAABl4/SLdhVEjOa4c/s1600/BertWheelerHollywoodMagicCatalog_pg04-5.jpg)
(https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/c1cd/qsnjapdrsljcfgn6g.jpg)
I'm not sure if that thing the ad claims about the glasses making the wearer seem see-through is actually true or not. I'm gonna take a guess the answer would be "not very".
Interesting mask.
So would the very first (official, or otherwise) Invisible Man toy be the Hasbro figure?
Sorry, I had to once again revive this thread, cause this thought crossed my mind again.
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on October 04, 2023, 09:13:10 PM
So would the very first (official, or otherwise) Invisible Man toy be the Hasbro figure?
First "toy" I can think of.
Maybe that mask would have sold better if they marketed as: Hipster Mummy or Blind Mummy?
Just saw, Spirit store actually has an overpriced Invisible Man costume. Universal licensed.
https://www.spirithalloween.com/product/adult-invisible-man-costume-universal-monsters/246846.uts (https://www.spirithalloween.com/product/adult-invisible-man-costume-universal-monsters/246846.uts)
Quote from: YoungestMonsterKid on October 07, 2023, 04:28:44 PM
Just saw, Spirit store actually has an overpriced Invisible Man costume. Universal licensed.
https://www.spirithalloween.com/product/adult-invisible-man-costume-universal-monsters/246846.uts (https://www.spirithalloween.com/product/adult-invisible-man-costume-universal-monsters/246846.uts)
Scroll down to the first Frankenstein costume. Did the good doctor also make Frankies coat?