What would Chaney's Dracula have looked like?

[Count_Zirock]

Actually, Lugosi did his own make-up for "Dracula." Jack Pierce and the studio insisted he wear the same hairpiece as Carlos Villarios, though.

Had Chaney lived to play in "Dracula," it likely would've remained a big-budget epic, a la "Hunchback" and "Phantom." When Chaney died, the film was almost scrapped. Only by trimming the budget did Carl, Jr., get Carl, Sr., to OK the film.

[RedKing]

I also think had Chaney lived and played Dracula and it was a success, Chaney would have welcomed the Frankenstein Monster role, so Bela would have ended up a footnote in Dracula history as one of several actors who played the role on stage, and Karloff would have have never become a star. For those reasons alone I am glad Chaney did not play Dracula, but I do wish he had lived longer and made more talking films, as he seemed to have made the transition to talkies quite well.

[zombiehorror]

Lon Chaney Jr. did a real good job doing his own makeup for "One Million Years B.C.".  It never showed up on camera, because the studio insisted it had to be done by a union representative.  Lon Chaney was known for his make up skills, and that would have been a selling point to audiences in 19321, because Chaney was legendary for his makeup skills, hence the name "Man of a thousand faces".  With sound coming in, it was also hoped Chaney would be also known as the "Man of a Thousand voices".  Lugosi came into Dracula as an unknown, and would have little say in what kind of make up was used for the character.  As far as how good the Chaney Dracula would have been in comparison to Lugosui's Dracula, nobody will ever know, because if Lon Chaney had made "Dracula", I doubt there would have ever been a Lugosi version.

I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with the discussion or why you keep making the same point, using quotes from me, which I haven't even argued against to begin with!?  Although Count Z obviously refutes your Lugosi-Dracula make up theory.

[Count_Zirock]

This photo has obviously been colorized, and was a posed publicity shot from the filming of "Dracula." I've seen the B/W version, but couldn't find it online. Other than the hairpiece, Lugosi's other concession to Jack Pierce was using a green-tinted make-up. The other actors were made up in reddish hues, so that Lugosi would appear far more pale than just using white make-up.

[Haunted hearse]

I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with the discussion or why you keep making the same point, using quotes from me, which I haven't even argued against to begin with!?  Although Count Z obviously refutes your Lugosi-Dracula make up theory.

Could you please remind me of what my Lugosi-Dracula theory was?  In all honesty, I had no idea if Lugosi had done his own makeup for Dracula, because Dracula was Lugosi's first screen role, and I had no idea if he would have been familiar with doing makeup for apearing in front of the camera.   If I recall, a big part of the reason he fought against apearing as the Frankenstein monster, was he didn't like the idea of hiding his handsome features, so I'm not sure he would have done his own makeup for that role.   By the way, don't worry about my making anymore comments on this thread, because the last thing I would want is to annoy you with my thoughts.

[marsattacks666]

Can't we all just get along? Geez!  These are fun discussions. It really doesn't matter, because, Lugosi became Universal's
Dracula.....and unfortunately, Chaney died. 

[Wich2]

As well as the fact that modern scholarship like Rhodes' and Skal's has pretty much proven that this was never going to happen.

Louis Mayer was not likely to release Chaney from MGM, Chaney likely did not want to return to Universal anyway, etc.

-Craig

[Count_Zirock]

It wasn't an absolute impossibility, though. It could have become a Universal/MGM co-production. Look at some of the unlikely studio pairings, like Warner Bros. and Disney on "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"

[Wich2]

Well, sure - almost nothing is TOTALLY impossible...

But back then, at the height of the Studio Era? Such a combo never happened.

-Craig

[Count_Zirock]

Well, sure - almost nothing is TOTALLY impossible...

But back then, at the height of the Studio Era? Such a combo never happened.

-Craig

Yes, very unlikely for the time.

[zombiehorror]

Could you please remind me of what my Lugosi-Dracula theory was?  In all honesty, I had no idea if Lugosi had done his own makeup for Dracula, because Dracula was Lugosi's first screen role, and I had no idea if he would have been familiar with doing makeup for apearing in front of the camera.   If I recall, a big part of the reason he fought against apearing as the Frankenstein monster, was he didn't like the idea of hiding his handsome features, so I'm not sure he would have done his own makeup for that role.   By the way, don't worry about my making anymore comments on this thread, because the last thing I would want is to annoy you with my thoughts.

Your "theory" to which I refer to is that Lugosi would have had no say in his make up given this was his first major role!  You make it a point to not only mention it in two post, you also argued/defended that post even before anyone said anything against it, then when CountZ states fact you suddenly backtrack as though you were only stating opinion whereas before your posts came across as though you had some knowledge on the subject!

Mars, I'm getting along just fine with everyone....maybe it is just miscommunication!?

[Count_Zirock]

At that time, there was still little difference between stage make-up and film make-up. All of Lon Chaney Sr's make-up techniques were first learned as a stage performer. Lugosi applied his own stage make-up as Dracula, because that's what actors did back then. When it was decided that they weren't going to try to make Lugosi appear as Dracula is described in the novel, but stick to the representation from the play, Lugosi saw no reason not to do his own make-up. No drawings survive of what Jack Pierce had wanted to do to Lugosi's face. All we know for certain is that he wore Pierce's hairpiece (the same one Carlos Villarios also wore) and that he used a green-tinted make-up that made him appear more pale, as the other actors were wearing red-tinted make-ups.

Remember, for Paramount's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," Frederick March's initial, on-screen transformation was done the same way it had been done onstage for decades: red-tinted make-up was applied to his face, and the red-tinted lights (which hid the make-up) were slowly changed to green-tinged, bringing out the make-up as a dark purple against his now greenish skin. Primitive, but still highly effective and still a standard stage illusion today.

[Wich2]

By '31, espcially after the coming of Sound, the studios had gotten pretty factory-like. It wasn't like the early Silent days.

Bela made his opinions known, but I doubt very much that Universal let him do his own makeup, rather than their makeup staff.

Actors just didn't do that then. Chaney had been a unique case, who built his own career over years.

-Craig

[Haunted hearse]

Your "theory" to which I refer to is that Lugosi would have had no say in his make up given this was his first major role!  You make it a point to not only mention it in two post, you also argued/defended that post even before anyone said anything against it, then when CountZ states fact you suddenly backtrack as though you were only stating opinion whereas before your posts came across as though you had some knowledge on the subject!

Mars, I'm getting along just fine with everyone....maybe it is just miscommunication!?

I thought I was done with this thread, but I don't like being mischacterized.   Since Irving Thalberg had a lot of control over at MGM, and would have seen Chaney playing Dracula as a bosst to one of MGM's big stars, I am not as convinced as some here, that Chaney would not have played Dracula.  If I recall, Universal thought they were done with Chaney after Hunchback, and yet they had to pay a huge price to get Chaney to play Phantom.

[zombiehorror]

I thought I was done with this thread, but I don't like being mischacterized.   Since Irving Thalberg had a lot of control over at MGM, and would have seen Chaney playing Dracula as a bosst to one of MGM's big stars, I am not as convinced as some here, that Chaney would not have played Dracula.  If I recall, Universal thought they were done with Chaney after Hunchback, and yet they had to pay a huge price to get Chaney to play Phantom.

?!  Since I've never put in my two cents on that issue I again am not sure why you are quoting my text but since you did, I'll always believe that Chaney was up for the role because well quite frankly, he was the godd*mn man of a thousand faces!