Help with the History of Universal Monsters

[Dr. Blasko]

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

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

[Haunted hearse]

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.

[Count_Zirock]

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

[Dr. Blasko]

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.

[Haunted hearse]

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.

[Haunted hearse]

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".

[Dr. Blasko]

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.

[Mord]

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).

[Count_Zirock]

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

[Mord]

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.

[Count_Zirock]

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!

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

[Dr. Blasko]

  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.

[japfeif]

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.

[Zackuth]

Have you gotten a grade yet?

[Count_Zirock]

Have you gotten a grade yet?

Yeah, don't leave us hanging, Doc!

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk