BAB Review: Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman (1943)

Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943)

Karen: Yes, your friendly co-editor has been on a bit of a Universal Monsters binge of late! A week after I watched The Wolfman, I put the disc with this gem in the player and sat back and enjoyed the first genre cross-over event! This really is monumental in a way; it's the first time the Universal creeps shared a film, and by doing so, it established something of a shared universe, even if the continuity of said universe was shaky at best. Was this the first shared universe in popular culture? I'm not sure, but it seems like it may have been.

Despite the Frankenstein Monster getting top billing, this is really a Wolfman picture, as poor Larry Talbot (played again by Lon Chaney Jr.) is unfortunately brought back to life when his tomb is disturbed by some grave robbers, in one of the most chilling scenes in a Universal monsters film. Transforming into his hairy self, he rampages and passes out, and is taken to a hospital. Realizing that he can't die, he decides to seek out the Gypsy woman Maleva (the wonderful Maria Ouspenskaya again) who agrees to help him. She has heard of a doctor who might be able to cure him, a miracle worker by the name of -Frankenstein! The two head of across Europe to the village of Visaria, only to discover Frankenstein's castle in ruins, the doctor dead, and his legacy held in loathing by the townspeople.However, Larry eventually discovers the Monster, frozen in the sunken ruins. 

The Monster this time around is portrayed by horror veteran Bela Lugosi. To this point, we had seen the Monster played by Karloff in three films (the original Frankenstein, Bride of, Son of), then Chaney Jr. stepped in for Ghost of Frankenstein, and next came Lugosi.  Honestly, while I thought Lugosi made a terrific Dracula, and I absolutely love him as Ygor in Son of and Ghost, he is a lousy Monster. Part of it is just his physical characteristics don't go well with the established Monster -his face is round and full, whereas the Monster we know from Karloff has a gaunt look. But what hurts him even more is that much of his performance was cut from the film, and what remains appears to be idiotic. To explain: this Monster had the brain of Ygor, the scheming murderer who had manipulated the Monster in the previous two Frankenstein films. But he was also blind as a result of incidents at the end of Ghost of Frankenstein. The script for this film had the blind Ygor-as-Monster talking to Larry Talbot, helping him look for Dr. Frankenstein's hidden notes so he could try to find release from life. But when executives saw scenes of the Monster speaking in Bela's thick Hungarian accent, they felt it was ludicrous, and had all his speaking scenes cut. So there's no explanation of why the Monster is stumbling and fumbling around as if he's had too much to drink, or why Larry seems to think he can be of help.

I'd be unhappy if my speaking scenes were cut too.

Some critics have pointed out that it is Lugosi's version of the Monster - arms outstretched, hesitant, jerky walk - that has actually become the accepted cultural version of Frankenstein! This was also how later actor Glenn Strange played the role, so I guess we can blame him too.

Despite this, much of the film still works. Chaney is still a compelling sympathetic figure in his quest for death, and this time he's got angry villagers after him, which is fun to watch. The usual suspects are here - Lionel Atwill shows up as the Mayor, and Patric Knowles is Chaney's doctor, who suddenly decides he wants to follow in Dr. Frankenstein's footsteps. Ilona Massey is the late doctor's daughter, who spends the last part of the film in a nightgown and must be partial inspiration for Madeline Kahn's character in Young Frankenstein.

The confrontation between the two monsters at the end is perhaps a bit of a letdown, in this day of flashy films. Even though Lugosi has clearly been replaced at points by a bigger stuntman (either Gil Perkins or Eddie Parker) as the Monster, the action is fairly mild, with the Wolfman and Monster doing some wrassling, the Wolfman jumping around a lot, and the Monster throwing lab equipment, before the dam above the castle explodes and washes them away. It's funny watching these films as an adult, because I certainly had built the action up in my head as a child. Still, it has its charms, and I wouldn't want to see some bloated CGI version of it (we shall never speak of Van Helsing at the BAB. Ever.)

I can't end this post without leaving you with the most memorable scene from FMTW -no, I'm not talking about the monsters, I'm talking about the Song of the New Wine! Listen at your own peril; it's like It's a Small World -once you get it in your head, you'll never get it out.

BAB Review: Dracula (1931) -Bilingual Style

Lugosi

Dracula (1931)

Karen: I had the pleasure of seeing the original Universal Studios  Dracula this last Sunday on the big screen courtesy of Fathom Events and Turner Classic Movies (TCM). I actually saw Dracula twice: first the classic Bela Lugosi version was shown, and after a ten minute intermission, the Spanish-language version, made on the same sets but with a different cast, was shown. I highly recommend seeing classic films like these on the big screen; it's a completely different experience than seeing it on a TV set. The Lugosi Dracula was also the restored, high def version that is  available as part of the blu-ray set of Universal Monsters films that came out a couple of years ago, and it's astonishingly clean and sharp. I know I was particularly amazed at how clear the sound was -no hissing or crackling!

I probably can't add anything new to the reams of commentary that have been made about this classic. I will say that the story seems almost truncated, like a Cliff's Notes version of the novel, with whole scenes whittled down to bare sketches (the time at Dracula's castle, the voyage on board the Vesta, etc.) although the Spanish version does slightly expand some scenes and adds a few shots that help tell the story a bit better. This was the first time I saw the entire Spanish language version, and while I can understand why some people might argue that it is the better production, there is one thing that keeps that from being true: Carlos Villarias is an absolutely awful Dracula! He is constantly mugging and grimacing, and his Count is utterly devoid of menace. 

Carlos Villarias as Dracula

This brings us to Lugosi. I think over the years people have tended to downplay his performance. Perhaps they have seen Ed Wood and look upon him as some sort of goofy, tragic character. But if you really watch him, he's quite  compelling. Yes, his line delivery is odd at times, but it actually enhances the other-worldliness of the character. And the aura of command, of danger, around him is palpable. There's a reason his is the foremost image of Dracula (sorry Christopher Lee) even today.

I want to say I am not connected to Fathom Events, TCM, or Universal in any way, but I encourage all of you to catch these films on the big screen. Fathom showed Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein around Halloween last year and it was fabulous. At both last year's and this year's shows, TCM host  Ben Mankiewicz appeared at the beginning of both films to provide some insights into each movie. I've read a ton on the Universal films and nothing he said was new to me, but I'm sure it was enlightening to some of the folks in the audience I was with. I appreciate Fathom, TCM, and Universal putting these films back out there and keeping them alive in theaters. I hope that perhaps another generation of film-goers can experience them and understand what makes them so special. Please note that many theaters will also be showing this double-feature this Wednesday, October 28th, so you still have a chance to see it! Check out the Fathom website to locate a theater near you. 

BAB Review: The Wolfman (1941)

Karen: Tis the season for spooky stuff, and certainly around here that includes the Universal Monster films of the 30s -50s. One of my favorites is The Wolfman, starring Lon Chaney Jr. Like all of its brethren, it's an atmospheric piece, with more mood than mayhem. It also has a tragic lead, in Larry Talbot, the hapless lead who is transformed into the Wolf Man. But I feel the film is often overlooked in the Universal ranks. It's actually a very good movie, with a terrific cast and an intriguing plot. Lon Chaney Jr. may have had a limited range, but as Larry Talbot, he comes off as likable and the viewer sympathizes with his feelings of discomfort, returning to  his birthplace in Wales after spending most of his life in America (and yes, it's probably the only way anyone could explain having the very English Claude Rains as his father). Later, when he begins to realize what has happened, Chaney's fear for his own sanity, and then fear for those around him, is handled well. Whenever watching a film from this time period, it would be easy to dismiss the much larger and more melodramatic acting style as a lack of talent, but this was how things were done then, as actors transitioned from stage to film. 

The rest of the cast, including Rains, Evelyn Ankers as Chaney's love interest Gwen, Bela Lugosi as the gypsy/werewolf Bela, and particularly Maria Ouspenskaya as the wise Gypsy woman Maleva all bring depth to their roles and give Chaney solid support. 

Writer Curt Siodmak, who wrote many screenplays from the 30s through the 50s, developed many of the concepts that would become 'modern' werewolf lore, although interestingly in the film, the full moon is never directly shown or referenced as being the cause of Talbot's transformations. The transformation itself is also initially left as something of a mystery -was Talbot truly physically transforming, or was it all in his mind? The people of the village all seem to know the lore and joke about it before Talbot is attacked by Bela, and the town doctor states that mass suggestion could make a man believe he could become a beast. Poor Talbot is completely confused about what is happening to him, and as a viewer, there's a level of uncertainty until near the end. At only an hour and ten minutes the film doesn't have a lot of time to play with this theme, but it's there.

Whether a wolf or not, Talbot is implicated in the attacks purely by being an outsider, and there's a wonderful scene in a church where you can feel the entire town turn their suspicion on him, and Chaney's fumbling, guilt-ridden reaction is perfect.

Although a minor detail, when Talbot goes to stop the werewolf's attack on a woman, although partially obscured by trees and mist, we can see that the beast is in a four-legged form (legend has it that the role was played by Chaney's dog, Moose). Was it a lack of money that caused this, or a desire to keep the werewolf makeup hidden til later? Or something else?

The Wolfman was Chaney's alone -no other actor played the character in a Universal film, something that can't be said of Frankenstein or Dracula, or the Mummy. Talbot spent the rest of his Universal life trying to find a way to die and rid himself of his curse, making him the most tragic of the monsters, and perhaps the most endearing too. 

I Like T-Shirts And I Cannot Lie

Karen: Hello, my name is Karen, and I have a t-shirt problem. OK, maybe not a problem. But I have to admit, I have acquired a lot of t-shirts. And by a lot, I mean way, way too many. 

Karen: I began wearing t-shirts at a very early age, as the photo below demonstrates (hey, it's Peanuts, so it's comic-related and demonstrates good taste). Now back in those days, t-shirts were not nearly as ubiquitous as they are now. They were still more occasional wear, and selection was fairly limited. You might see t-shirts for a few tremendously popular comics characters -like the Peanuts gang, or Batman, who was huge after his TV show -but by the time of this photo, circa 1970, pickings were still limited, especially for a little kid.

Your host circa 1970

Karen: But in a few years, t-shirts had expanded on the scene, and by the time I was 10 or 11, I was thrilled to have several t-shirts featuring Marvel characters, which I had ordered from advertisements in the comics. Exhibit A shows me around 11 years old on a couch with my grandparents and brother (I'm pretty sure my brother has just said something goofy, based on our expressions). I'm wearing a shirt with the cover of Incredible Hulk # 152 (and  as a bonus, a Planet of the Apes rifle is resting on my lap -ah, the 70s).  Soon I would also have a sweatshirt with the original Star Trek cast standing in the transporter room, and when Star Wars hit, well, I had to have a t-shirt, and there were tons of them to choose from.  I got one with Luke Skywalker and C-3PO. It was so cheaply made the applique began peeling off after the first wash.

Karen: The love of t-shirts continued on. Heck, in my old job, working  as a research scientist in a wet lab, t-shirts were almost expected attire. But things began to change several years ago. Around about the time I hit forty, I started to feel that perhaps it was not proper for a woman my age to wear t-shirts any more. Perhaps that was for the kids. So I got rid of many of my shirts, gave some away, used others only for night shirts. I had to be an adult, I told myself. I had to dress respectably.

Karen: Well, that didn't last too long. I dress respectably at work now, but as soon as I am away from there, the t-shirts come out! I just love them too much.

Exhibit A

Karen: There is so much variety now - I really can get a shirt for almost any comic, movie, tv show -anything I can think of. It is mind-boggling. I think that is the reason they are so popular (that, and they are just so comfortable). The t-shirt is a medium of expression -it tells people what you like and/or what you think in a passive way, but sometimes solicits a response from others. When I was younger that response was often negative -"Star Trek is stupid" - but today I am often complemented on my shirts, even when I am not in a geek-populated area, and I've had people ask me where I got my shirts. Yes, things have changed.

Karen: I have looked through my shirts and decided to name (and show) a few favorites. I've sort of broken my "collection" (Ye Gods, not another collection) down into categories. So there are the comics shirts, the monster shirts, the Star Trek shirts, the Star Wars shirts, the Disney shirts, the sports shirts, the music shirts, the sci-fi shirts, and finally, the Bruce Lee shirts. There's some miscellaneous ones in there too but not really of interest to this blog.

Karen: One of my favorites is one I picked up a couple years ago at Rob Zombie's Halloweentown in Burbank, and have shown it here before -it's the Captain Kirk vs. the Gorn shirt. It's just an awesome shirt, designed so well, like a classic boxing poster. However, in this picture, I have achieved some sort of cosmic balance by wearing the shirt to Vasquez Rocks in southern California, where the actual Star Trek episode "Arena" was filmed! This is the very spot where the Gorn heaved a (styrofoam) boulder at an outmatched Kirk, although the captain ultimately used his chemistry skills to create a cannon to shoot diamonds at the Gorn and defeat the big lizard. Unfortunately we did not find any diamonds lying around, but we did get to tour the place, and the ladies volunteering at the park were delighted -"you're Trekkies!" -and they told us a bunch of stories about the actor who played the Gorn (Bobby Clark), who sometimes does signings at the park.

At Vasquez Rocks, 2015

Karen: Bruce Lee has always been an icon of mine, and I found the Bruce Lee store through the Facebook page run by his daughter. They have a lot of great t-shirts there, although they are a bit pricey. But I really wanted to have a nice shirt with Bruce, so last year I ordered one. I have since purchased two more...

Bruce and Dr. Funk!

Karen: I want to share some representative shirts that I think the BAB crew will like. First up, this Planet of the Apes design from the Famous Monsters online store. The artist, Jason Edmiston, is very talented and a super-nice guy. I met him this year at Monsterpalooza and bought a Planet of the Apes print from him and spoke with him for a bit about his art and his process. You should check out his site -he has a lot of great stuff!

Karen: This Star Wars Tee was from the 2007 San Diego Comic Con and so is somewhat rare. I don't wear it too much now because it is starting to fade, but what a cool shirt. Illustration by Adam Hughes.

Karen: Probably my favorite Marvel shirt. All-new, all-different X-Men. Classic Dave Cockrum illustration. I can't recall if I got this at target or from an online store like Superhero Stuff or Stylin Online. But a great look, one that I've had several people comment on.

Karen: Most of my Disney shirts are from the parks, but this one was a special order. For a limited time a few years ago, they had this Hatbox Ghost shirt available online. Now that the spook is back in the Haunted Mansion, I am sure there's a ton of merchandise for him, but at the time, it was pretty rare!

Karen: Finally, this one is an oldie but a goodie. It seems like everyone digs it, from the old farts to the youngsters. When I first got it, I thought it seemed a bit odd, with the slightly off-center positioning and all, but I think that makes it more dynamic. But really, it's just because the Creature is eternally cool.

Karen: I'd love to hear your thoughts on the role of the t-shirt in pop culture, as a tool for self-expression, or just some of your own favorite t-shirts!

POST-SCRIPT: We got a great follow-up to this post from our pal Humanbelly. We post it here a bit late but hope that all of you will enjoy it, nonetheless. Take it away, HB:

HB: My first superhero t-shirt.  Or its remains, to be more precise.

There was a big, rather crumbling warehouse clothing "outlet" store in nearby Elkhart, IN when I was a kid, and apart from TONS of irregular designer jeans, they also were set up to do cut-rate iron-on t-shirt transfers.  This was in the early/mid 70's, just as that craze was kind of coming into vogue for adolescents and young teens (at least, small-town, mid-western young teens) as a personal fashion-statement option.  They had Spidey, Cap, and the Hulk available.   Got Cap for Bryan and Spidey for his little brother while I was there.  I made the mistake of choosing appropriately colored shirts for each (blue for Cap, Red for Spidey), rather than white.  And if you look at this image, you can see that the design(s) assumed the white of your average t-shirt would take care of any necessary white in the image.   I had to use fabric paint on the other two to make them look even remotely correct... 

But I loved this shirt to DEATH, regardless.  It was really big on me when I got it at (probably) 13 years old-- and I may have not fully given up on it until high school.  Man, those transfers never laundered well-- and the thing shrank after the first wash (my Mom wasn't so careful about cold-water items-- she shrank everything).  I think I may have used it as an off-beat track/X-Country shirt once the sleeves came off.  It ended up in the rag bag more than once. . . ended up in the bottom of a memorabilia trunk for several years. . . and is now safely stapled to the wall as part of the Hulk Corner in the comic book room downstairs.

The image is one that, for some reason, has had enduring popularity-- Hulk #123, with the Leader and the, heh, Murder Module.  

I had a couple of those ubiquitous poly/silk paisley disco shirts that were all the rage in the late 70's.  One of them was purple and orange, so this is the shirt I would wear underneath, with the silk shirt unbuttoned to just above navel-height.  (And the T was plumb ragged and faded at that point, make no mistake.)

I have no idea how anyone dated me during that period.  The list of Well-He's-Kinda-Cute-In-Spite-Of's must have been absurdly long.   Or perhaps I just posed no threat whatsoever... 

Who's the Best... Funny Scary Movie?

Karen: Happy Halloween, BABsters! In the 'spirit' of the holiday, we'd like to pose this question to you: What's the best funny scary movie? Here's a few candidates I'd like to throw out there. Feel free to nominate some of your own.

Parental Guidance

Doug:  Some of the comments in our recent discussions, notably the post last Friday on periphery products (Karen's tale of a father not happy due to the redecorative properties of the Marvel wall stickers was a hoot) alongside our comics buying, has us thinking about the role our parents and other significant adults played in our buying as children and teens.  Today we'd like to talk about allowances, parental support or disdain (and we hope to not open any wounds for our readers -- forgive us in advance, as that is certainly not the intent of this conversation), and maybe even specific comics you recall a significant adult in your life purchasing for you.

Image courtesy of the Mego Museum

Doug:  My mom was just a saint when it came to supplying this pup with comics and comic-related goodness.  I wish I could remember if I was a royal pain-in-the-butt at the store; I don't think I was, but hey -- I have a hard time remembering what I ate for breakfast yesterday.  I can recall several trips home from Target or Venture with a Mego in hand, and I have vivid memories of riding my bike -- at the ripe old age of 7 (something I never would have let my own kids do) -- to the local drugstore to buy 25c comics.  I really don't have any memories of getting an allowance, although I think I did.  Back in the early 1970's, it probably would have been a dollar per week.  But shoot -- that was four comics!  My dad wasn't around much when I was little, but I remember that he wasn't the least bit excited about my interest in comics.  I don't know that he talked down to me about it, but there were just enough comments made that it was clear where he stood.  Incidentally, I do think he was more in favor of my G.I. Joes, having served in the U.S. Army in the early '60's; Planet of the Apes was stupid, however.  Funny thing is, one of the last comic-related comments he made before the divorce was while looking at the Thor vs. Loki image in Marvel's 1977 calendar and saying of the John Buscema/Joe Sinnott image, "Man, those guys sure can draw muscles!"

Karen: For me too, my mom was always very supportive of my interests, particularly my more creative ones. Heck, she introduced me to the Universal monster films, Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes, the Twilight Zone, and innumerable 50s sci fi films. My older brother brought comics into the house, but I was the one who really went bananas for them, and mom always encouraged my reading of them. She not only bought me comics, she took me to my very first comic book convention -the San Diego Comic Con in 1975. Mom enjoyed anything imaginative and over the top. I recall as a teen taking her to see Star Trek:The Wrath of Khan and The Empire Strikes Back at the theater. She had not been out to a movie theater in many years (she had been bedridden for several years when I was in my tweens) and the powerful, immersive sound system got her as pumped up as any 12 year old kid! At the time, I was annoyed but now I look back and smile. Dad has always been a much more practical guy. While he has never really understood my love of all this stuff, he's never put it down. I recall trips to the drugstore with him and he would pick up a comic or two for me.

Image found at Steve Does Comics

Doug:  As to comics I can recall relatives buying for me, there are a few.  I mentioned in the comments of last Friday's post that my sister and I spent a week in the western suburbs of Chicago with my uncle and aunt.  In 1975 I vividly recall a trip to an indoor amusement park called Old Chicago.  After going on some rides, we went out into the concourse to an ice cream shop.  There must have been some sort of gift shop adjacent to it, as I bird-dogged a spinner rack and instantly wrapped my 9-year eyeballs around it.  I am pretty sure I begged and pestered my aunt into buying me copies of Daredevil #'s 126-127 (October-November 1975) with the Torpedo, and Amazing Spider-Man #150 (November 1975), the epilogue to the "clone saga".  It was 75c well spent, I'm sure, as it probably kept me busy the rest of the day -- after I read them, I'm sure I would have asked for typing paper or tracing paper and done some of my own artwork.  As to specific books from my parents, we've discussed the Fireside books before, and I can recall each Christmas that I got one of the first five volumes, from Origins of Marvel Comics through Marvel's Greatest Superhero Battles.

Karen: For many years, Christmas at our household also meant Marvel goodies, including the "Origins" books as well as calendars. For specific comics, I can recall only a few. But one that  stands out is X-Men #114. When that issue came out, I had been laid up at home for some time with an illness, and there was little that brightened my mood. But when mom came home one day with that comic for me, it really picked me up. To this day I can see that cover in my head effortlessly. That one book lifted me out of a bad time and to this day is one of my favorite issues of the title, probably just for that reason alone. And also, I'll always connect it to my mom, and all her efforts to help me feel better when I was having a rough go of it.

Doug:  Well, the ball is in your court now.  Do you have some remembrances to share, of good deeds and kind relatives?

BAB Wish Lists

Karen: Here we are once again, the holiday season, and there's so many goodies out there! I'm sure you all have your eyes on a few special things you'd love to receive as a gift. Doug and I are continuing our tradition (hey, this will be our third year in a row) of pointing out some cool and geeky stuff that we'd like to find under our respective Christmas trees.

Karen: I'm cheating on this first one, because I already bought it for myself as an early gift! I couldn't resist, it was going half-price. John Landis (yes, THAT John Landis) has put together a very nice, big book chock full of monsters. Monsters in the Movies is primarily a book to ogle for all the excellent photographs from hundreds (thousands?) of monsters that have appeared on film in the last century. Landis divides things up based on the type of monster -vampires, werewolves, giant monsters, ghosts, etc. Sometimes his commentary accompanying the photos is straightforward. Other times he makes some witty observations or critical remarks -he's not shy about telling you if he thinks a film stank! There are also eight interviews sprinkled throughout, featuring people like Christopher Lee and Ray Harryhausen. I don't know that I'd want to dish out the $40 cover price, but it is a lot of fun and if you can get it cheaper I'd say go for it -it's very entertaining.

Doug: Many of you were a part of my fantasy wish list a few weeks ago when I ran the Bronze Age books post. I did ask for several of those books, but the thing I asked for that I really hope I get is the Batman: Year One DVD. I enjoyed Frank Miller's four-part story that ran in Batman #'s 401-404, and I understand this adaptation is very faithful to the source material. I'd add, however, that as I've "grown up" and reverted to the love for the era from which I came, much of the adoration I had for some of the mid-'80's reboots has certainly faded. That stuff doesn't stick for me as much anymore.

Karen: There are a number of Marvel Masterworks that I would love to get, but if I could only pick two I would go for the Iron Fist volume 1 and Defenders volume 2 editions. The Iron Fist volume features the early appearances of the character in Marvel Premiere. At one time, I had most of these, but during my move from California to Arizona, the long box that held them "disappeared." So getting this book would help to replace them. My collection of Defenders is spotty from about 3-20, but I have volume 1 of this Masterworks series, so getting volume two would pretty much fill it in. These issues feature Steve Englehart and Sal Buscema, a team I loved from Captain America. I'm looking forward to getting this and reading some Bronze age goodness I've never seen before.

Doug: I saw a nifty book on Amazon last week while searching for some other stuff -- I immediately added this to "the list". I hope I wasn't too late! Many of our blog-mates frequently run posts featuring old advertisements. Mail-Order Mysteries: Real Stuff From Old Comic Book Ads! looks like a real hoot. Near as I can tell, the author got his hands on the X-ray specs and whatnot, and writes a review of what the buyer actually received. Not only that, but how the stuff "worked"! As an owner of Sea Monkeys, I'm really looking forward to this expose'!

Karen: This year my unobtainable, Holy Grail sort of item would be Sideshow's 12" Mummy figure. I believe this figure was originally produced back in 2003. Of course, it's from Sideshow, and that means quality. It's an excellent face sculpt, a very good likeness of Karloff. Some nice accessories too. I have all the 'original' Universal Monsters (2 Frankenstein Monsters, Dracula, Wolfman) and the Creature from the Black Lagoon in the 12" format, so having the Mummy is high on my list. Unfortunately, he's very hard to find and very pricey -typically around $250 on the secondary market! That's a little too much for me to justify spending, but I sure would love to get a hold of him some day.

Doug: You may have noticed on our sidebar that we'll be looking at a few of the totally-awesome Claremont/Byrne Marvel Team-Ups. This does, however, hinge on my reception of the recently-released tpb of those stories! Yep, Spider-Man: Marvel Team-Up by Claremont and Byrne came out just a couple of weeks ago. Here's to keeping my fingers crossed. I also requested Legends of the Dark Knight: Marshall Rogers, as well as some of the slew of superhero tree ornaments offered by Hallmark this season.

Doug: We'll let you know how we made out, in about a week!




Doug: We received a note yesterday from our friend Scott Edelman about a post he was running on his own blog. We'd invite you to check it out, and join in the lengthy conversation going on from Scott's audience. It's a worthwhile, very thought-provoking read!

It's Here! Halloween!

Karen: That's right kids, it's time to celebrate our illogical love of being scared. What is it about having your heart pounding and the hairs raising up on the back of your neck that somehow fulfills some twisted need?

Karen: Well, who cares! Let's start our Halloween off right with some clips from some great scary films.

Karen: If you have the time, here's part one of an excellent documentary on the Universal horror films:

Karen: Finally, a little silliness:

Happy Halloween everyone!!

Classic vs. Modern Monsters

Karen: When it comes to horror and monsters, I am decidedly old school. Growing up, the Universal Monsters -Frankenstein, Dracula, Wolfman, Mummy, Creature - were always on TV, usually on Saturdays, and I sat in front of the screen mesmerized by their tales. Each one had such a distinct back story and personality. Three of them, the Frankenstein Monster, the Wolfman, and the Mummy, also had tragic elements that made you feel for the characters. For me Dracula was just flat-out evil, and the Creature was more like a wild animal. But all of them had something that made them exciting and scary, but in a fun way.

Then in the 70s and especially 80s, a new type of monster came along: The slasher. This monster was far closer to our reality than the old monsters had been. He was essentially a serial killer with supernatural abilities or origins. There's Freddy from the Nightmare on Elm Street series, Jason from Friday the 13th, Michael Myers from Halloween, Chucky from Child's Play, and many others. Most of their victims are teenagers. While some of these characters were somehow wronged in their past, most of them are just plain evil psycho killers that deserve little sympathy, if any. Certainly the child murderer Freddy can hardly be considered worthy of our concern. And yet, these monsters are immensely popular with some fans.

So I'm curious: I know some of you also enjoy monster stuff. Where do you fall in this discussion? Classic or Modern? And if it's modern, I'd really be interested in hearing why.

Check out the new Avengers movie trailer here!! Wow!

Monsters: Classic vs. Marvel!

Karen: Marvel Bronze Age fans know that in the 70s, Marvel published a ton of monster comics. But how do the Marvel versions stack up against the Universal movie classics that obviously inspired them? Let's take a look.

Dracula: The bloody Count has been featured in numerous films, and played by many actors, but one name always stands above the rest: Bela Lugosi.

Lugosi left his mark on the role -and our psyches -with his interpretation of the world's most famous vampire. His Dracula set the standard for all images to come. On some levels, this includes Marvel's version. But the comics Count does have his differences.

Marvel's Dracula, as drawn by the legendary Gene Colan, was tall and lean, with a thin mustache, and oddly enough, pointed ears! Although he had the same widow's peak hairstyle as Lugosi, he may have owed more of his look to either John Carradine's version, or the then-current Hammer films vampire, portrayed by Christopher Lee.


The Frankenstein Monster: Most famously portrayed by Boris Karloff, the Monster was played by no less than four actors in the Universal films (Karloff, Lon Chaney Jr, Bela Lugosi, and Glenn Strange), and since then a ton of other films have featured some version of the Monster. But that Universal image, with the elongated, flattened head, drooping eyelids, and the infamous neck bolts, is the one most firmly entrenched in the public mind. Particularly at Halloween time, you see representations of it everywhere: on toys, greeting cards, I even saw a box of tissues bearing the image of the Universal Frankenstein!

Marvel's Monster certainly owed a strong debt to the classic look. His head had a high forehead and a somewhat flattened top. The eyes were typically drawn as half-shut. No neck bolts -that would've been too close to the Universal version, I'm sure. But interestingly, the Marvel version was typically shown wearing a fur vest, very similar to the Monster's garb in Son of Frankenstein. Perhaps the biggest change was making the Monster's skin tone a pale white. Although the original films were made in black and white, the commonly accepted skin color for the Monster has been green (you can still find some color shots floating around that depict a green Karloff in the role). Truthfully, the white skin seemed to make more sense than green. The Monster was drawn by a number of artists, including Mike Ploog, John Buscema, and Val Mayerik.

The Wolfman: The third member of the classic monster triumvirate is the bestial Wolfman. As portrayed by Lon Chaney Jr., the Wolfman was a tragic figure, cursed to become a beast when the moon was full. Universal's lycanthrope seems tame in comparison to modern movie werewolves, but in some ways, I think this classic version allows more of the humanity (and thus the tragedy) of the character to come through. The Universal Wolfman is hairy, with a wolf-like nose and fangs. Although the movies were in black and white, most representations of the character (such as action figures) depict him as having brown fur and skin.

In this case there are actually two Marvel characters who were influenced by the Wolfman. The first is Jack Russell, aka Werewolf by Night. He could almost be the Wolfman's twin brother. Same color scheme, and facially very similar, as WBN retains a more human appearance. One way they did differ: the Werewolf liked to run around shirtless! I'll go on record saying I prefer the Ploog Werewolf over all others.

On the other hand, the Man-Wolf looked decidedly different than the Wolfman. The most obvious difference is coloring: Man-Wolf had a white or silvery look to his fur. He also had a bit more of the wolf to his face, as he seemed to have a bit of a snout, and large, canine ears. He'd fit right in with werewolves in more recent flicks.

Now Marvel also had a Living Mummy, but there's not much to say here: both the Universal Mummy and Marvel's version were just guys wrapped up in bandages! As for that later addition to the Universal Monsters, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, there's no strong Marvel analog. Yes, Marvel did come up with a monster called the Manphibian for the Legion of Monsters magazine, who definitely seemed inspired by the Creature, but he was a one hit wonder. If any Marvel monster reminds me of the Creature, it's probably Man-Thing. Although they look nothing alike, the concept of the solitary , one of a kind monster, living in an aquatic environment (in Man-Thing's case, a swamp) is similar. But visually there's no comparison.

Bronze Age Babies Bulletins

Doug: I'm not at all excited about the pre-release publicity for the Avengers re-launch from Marvel Comics. A longtime fan, I got out of the title altogether after issue #25 of New Avengers. I figured I'd given Brian Michael Bendis 2+ years to effectively ruin my favorite title/characters -- enough was enough and I wasn't going to give them one more dime (let alone the ridiculous price that new comics are selling for these days). I never bought an issue of Mighty Avengers, nor of Avengers: Initiative. This whole campaign smacks of the worst marketing ploys of the 1990's: incessant #1's, top characters glutting the market (hey, how many books can Wolverine and Spider-Man appear in each month??), and who knows? -- Could foil covers be far behind? I'll stick to reading old Silver and Bronze Age material.

Karen: I was pretty excited when I saw the cover to Adventure Comics #8 featuring the Legion of Super-Heroes. It seemed like the Legion was finally back, and I was looking forward to diving in to a new tale of the team. Unfortunately this book is just one big tease. We never get a complete story, but 4 beginnings of stories, 3 of which are apparently going to be resolved in another title, Superman: Last Stand on New Krypton. Geez DC, you finally got me interested in one of your books again, only to tick me off by using it as a scheme to push another title on me. This was just lousy, and my enthusiasm for picking up anything with the Legion now is quite low.

Doug: If you've never given some of the Bronze Age black & white magazines a look, you should. Rampaging Hulk, Savage Sword of Conan, Planet of the Apes -- great stuff! Many of the writers and artists you love in the four-color world have some nice, nice work in these pages. If you're one who's a little put-off by the Essentials, don't be. The art in these books is usually much more detailed, largely because it was meant to be printed without color. The wash and zipatone techniques often add a lot of texture to the pencils. The Apes magazine picks up where Battle for the Planet of the Apes left off.

Karen: Diamond Select has announced that it will be putting out some figures based on the Universal Monsters line. From what I have seen of the designs, these look outstanding. The first one available is the Creature from the Black Lagoon, complete with the lovely Julie Adams! Price on this is $19.99 but might be found for less. It's good to see some sharp-looking Universal figures coming out again. (http://www.diamondselecttoys.com/)

Doug: Back in December I posted a couple of pictures of Mattel's upcoming Retro-Action DC Super-Heroes figures -- Mego throwbacks at their finest! Today, take a look at a group shot from last month's ToyFair, held in New York City. Wow! If these guys truly aren't the second coming of the Megos we loved as kids, then I don't know what is! The detail is a bit better than The World's Greatest Super-Heroes from 35 years ago, but the spirit is certainly here. I have a real soft spot for the Batman with the removable cowl; my first Mego Batman was ordered from the Sears catalog for Christmas one year, and had this feature. Mego soon changed to the non-removable version...