NEW FOR HALLOWEEN - 2018

[aura of foreboding]

Thanks for pointing them out...

           But they are bloody awful!





Universal Monsters - Wall Calendar - 2019
Measures 12" x 12" folded and 12" x 24" open for hanging

Only good note: the Creature images are OK - and there are two of those.

Ugh!  I am so over this style guide art.  I thought we were done with it.  Almost 20 years with the same art when previous art only lasted a few years...  Why did we get stuck with this one?  Why couldn't it have been the 1997 designs?  Gah!

[Anton Phibes]

It's true. This is feces. If it were for some generic monsters, it would be lovely I suppose. But they cannot slap a Classic Universal Monsters logo on something that...... isn't, and expect me to pull out my wallet. Nope.

[Count Zachula]

OOF!! That Calendar...

Frankenstein got botox...



The Bride is suddenly a Broadway singer...



And the Mummy looks like a dirty diaper.

[Mord]

This is beyond awful (even the green jacket is back)! Now all we need is the figures to look like this. I'm glad this all comes about at a time when I'm trying to save money.

[Remco Wolfman]

I don't like the calendar. I wouldn't buy it, BUT I am very pleased that somebody decided to make a calendar with the Universal Monsters on it. It doesn't harm me personally if they make merchandise that I don't want to buy. Maybe someone else wants to. Maybe it gets a kid interested in the Universal Monsters. Maybe it helps make the Monsters relevant again and actually tie them to Universal. Maybe Universal decides to push the Universal Monsters more. It's not a bad thing. It isn't as though the Sideshow and Super 7's of the world will start exclusively producing figures that look like that calendar. 

I don't think DC Comics fans freak out like this when someone makes merchandise that doesn't exactly replicate the original look of Batman in 1939. I don't hear anyone moaning about how Batman doesn't wear blue skivvies anymore. Disney fans don't freak out when Mickey Mouse doesn't look identical to Steamboat Willie. Spiderman was originally black and red in 1962. Iron Man looks very different in this Marvel cinematic universe than he did in his 1963 debut.

I think Universal Monster fans need to lighten up by and large and allow the Universal Monsters to become relevant to this CENTURY.

[Monsters For Sale]

... It doesn't harm me personally if they make merchandise that I don't want to buy. ...

I don't know.

I worry that they will make more dreck like this that diehard fans won't want to buy.  And when it doesn't sell, they will take that to mean that no one cares about the Classic Monsters anymore.  Then other planned merchandise will lose its backers and product lines dry up.

The only monster in the calendar that looks at all close to the screen version is the Creature - because it doesn't have a recognizable actor's face and Universal or the manufacturer can save on licensing fees.

Images can be very stylized and still look undeniably like the actors who portrayed the monster.  These generic approximations aren't clever caricatures of the actors, they are deliberately designed to avoid looking anything like them for the sole purpose of saving money.

I don't want to buy something that is TRYING not to look like the monsters I want to collect. 

I'm not a buyer.

[aura of foreboding]

The problem is this style guide stock art was adopted before the deal with Karloff.  After they closed the deal with Karloff, there should have been all new art commissioned. 

I think Universal Monster fans need to lighten up by and large and allow the Universal Monsters to become relevant to this CENTURY.

This art is from 2002.  2002.  It is hardly relevant, new, or updated for modern audiences.  It is the same as it was back in the early 2000s.  Why has this art stuck?  It is the ugliest and worst art Universal has ever had in the style guide.  The 1997 art was amazing, far superior to this with actual Karloff and Chaney likenesses and alternate versions (Strange) when neither could be used.  It is unforgivable that the Universal Monsters have not received an update since then.  I thought we were good in 2008 when they released the brand new party supplies.  I know Lugosi had another falling out with Universal after that, and I know Chaney had a problem after that too, but they could have kept the Karloff art at least... or commissioned all new art to use when Karloff's image couldn't be used, as there are limitations, but it's probably just on Halloween candy and food promotions. 

I worry that they will make more dreck like this that diehard fans won't want to buy.  And when it doesn't sell, they will take that to mean that no one cares about the Classic Monsters anymore.  Then other planned merchandise will lose its backers and product lines dry up.

Exactly.  This is what will happen.  Who has a good number/address/email for the folks responsible for merchandising the Universal Monsters?  We need to tell them that this s***** stock art needs to be revamped. 

[zombiehorror]

D.C., Marvel, Disney, etc. characters have been reinvented (and their fan base has botched about it) for actual use other than merchandising; Universal just tries (horribly) to reinvent their characters for purely marketing demographics.  If a child were to like what he sees on that calendar they'd be hard pressed and probably disappointed in finding out these characters, at least that depiction of them, doesn't exist in any other form besides some graphics slapped on cups or toy vehicles.

[Remco Wolfman]

Like I said...

Universal doesn't force manufacturers to use these images. They don't. That isn't how it works (anywhere). I do licensing. Everyday. Here's what happened.

Whatever company produces these calendars had a marketing guy say "let's make a monster calendar!".

They eventually ran that by the legal team and they said "are we infringing any IP if we use Frankenstein and Dracula and these other monsters? Yes, ... maybe..."

The legal team advised the company to get a license through Universal. They did so. The COMPANY selected from the Universal portfolio of licenseable renditions of the Universal Monsters. The company selected this version. It's what they thought would sell to their targeted demographic. Probably kids who aren't keen on black and white images from the 30's. And that's how it works.

It in no way forces another company to utilize this same style. Probably why no one has used it since the early 2000's. They use what they think will sell. Meanwhile this same year other company's are doing greeting cards of the monsters using pictures from the movie and people complain they're not doing anything new. Super 7 came out with some killer stuff. A lot of it, and more to come.  Everything Universal Monsters does not need to be a collectors item for adults.

If they don't target an audience other than the 50 and up crowd the Universal Monsters will die. If that's what you want great for you but that's the reality.

[Haunted hearse]

I don't know.

I worry that they will make more dreck like this that diehard fans won't want to buy.  And when it doesn't sell, they will take that to mean that no one cares about the Classic Monsters anymore.  Then other planned merchandise will lose its backers and product lines dry up.

And yet when Adam Sandler does a tribute series to the Classic Universal Monsters, it does quite well at the box office.  Universal themselves are the problem here. Even when it came to "Mockingbird  Lane", they wanted to avoid the classic look of the old monsters. But let anybody but Universal attempt a tribute, depend on their legal department letting those doing the tribute know what they must avoid doing.

[Monsters For Sale]

... Everything Universal Monsters does not need to be a collectors item for adults.

If they don't target an audience other than the 50 and up crowd the Universal Monsters will die. If that's what you want great for you but that's the reality. 

I agree.  I actually like well done caricatures of the monsters.

And yet, I, in my incorrigible dotage still refuse to buy what I consider crap.

[Mord]

I agree.  I actually like well done caricatures of the monsters.

And yet, I, in my incorrigible dotage still refuse to buy what I consider crap.

I agree. The classic monsters should be aimed at adults. It's not like little kids are screaming for mediocre versions of classic monsters. I think they might settle for well done versions.  By goofing up the likenesses, you automatically exclude your biggest consumer base (the adults with money). The new Mego Dracula is the best of both worlds...an inexpensive toy and an adult collectible.

[MrDark1]

Universal makes it clear that when licensing their monsters, you as the licensee, will pay More for the Classic (Likeness) Monsters, (those available at any time), and you will pay much Less for their Generic cartoon crap!  It is the licensee's choice as to what they can afford, or understand what will sell.  Again this is stipulated from Universal's top lawyers who in fact created the generic looking monsters as a way for Universal to keep All profits from these licensing, and do not split, or share profits with any of the actors estates.

I am still saddened at the apparent lack of support for the "Dead On" likeness of the Karloff Frankenstein- Hallmark Ornament received!
Too many years have past to think they will continue any further Universal Monsters themes.  Lots of love for Super 7 items, some deservedly so.
But to think what Hallmark could have continued to do with these true Classic Monster 'Likeness' pieces boggles my mind !  Hallmark does not shy away from any true film likeness sculpts on any of their film pieces!    *sigh*

[aura of foreboding]

Like I said...

Universal doesn't force manufacturers to use these images. They don't. That isn't how it works (anywhere). I do licensing. Everyday. Here's what happened.

Whatever company produces these calendars had a marketing guy say "let's make a monster calendar!".

They eventually ran that by the legal team and they said "are we infringing any IP if we use Frankenstein and Dracula and these other monsters? Yes, ... maybe..."

The legal team advised the company to get a license through Universal. They did so. The COMPANY selected from the Universal portfolio of licenseable renditions of the Universal Monsters. The company selected this version. It's what they thought would sell to their targeted demographic. Probably kids who aren't keen on black and white images from the 30's. And that's how it works.

It in no way forces another company to utilize this same style. Probably why no one has used it since the early 2000's. They use what they think will sell. Meanwhile this same year other company's are doing greeting cards of the monsters using pictures from the movie and people complain they're not doing anything new. Super 7 came out with some killer stuff. A lot of it, and more to come.  Everything Universal Monsters does not need to be a collectors item for adults.

If they don't target an audience other than the 50 and up crowd the Universal Monsters will die. If that's what you want great for you but that's the reality.

Universal DOES control what artwork is available to businesses.  There is certain artwork that has been permanently retired, like the 1991 images.

This is also the most complete set of artwork Universal offers up, as the 1997 stock art, with actor likenesses, has fewer poses and such.  It also bypasses the Karloff license, as MrDark has mentioned.  I'm saying this stock art needs to be put to bed like the 1991 images were.  It needs to go and needs to be revamped.

The 1997 stock art is probably still available as it has been seen on the Revel Models.  If nothing else, it should replace this option.  Period.   

[Remco Wolfman]

  I agree. The classic monsters should be aimed at adults. It's not like little kids are screaming for mediocre versions of classic monsters.

The new Mego Dracula is the best of both worlds...an inexpensive toy and an adult collectible.

Yeah, kids hate monsters.  Hotel Transylvania has probably been a devastating failure for Sony. As an aside, I'm pretty confident no kid has willingly played with a Mego anything in my lifetime.