Kaustic Plastik / Infinite Statue / SD Toys - 1/6 Universal Monsters

[Dr. Anton Phibes]

Universal has little choice but to change the desig

Yeah not a fan of them but I suppose they’re prepared for when the originals start becoming public domain in a few years. Sad stuff like that makes them need to adapt something they nailed the first time.

This is exactly why this is being done. In the past, Universal used their "homogenized" updated designs in an attempt to do a work around in paying actor estates. Purists like me hated it. Now, they are being more or less "forced" to redesign their monsters due to Public Domain laws. In 2031, Dracula and Frankenstein will be 100 years old. That's 7 years. By 2054, even the Creature will be 100 years old. That's only 30 years.

Then their classic designs can be used in whatever propaganda or filthy fan fiction anyone wants to get published.

 

[lordnastrond]

Whats your favourite non-classic-Universal monster designs?

- i think my favourite werewolf is William from the 2nd Underworld movie or the werewolves from Van Helsing.

 

[matrix69]

Yeah I thought the same. Look meh.
Maybe the rides will do them justice

Or make you throw up before you get on the ride

 

[matrix69]

They look like super heroes...
It's missing to point.
It's not horror.
Wolfman is cool but again, it looks like Marvel's Wolf man.



Oh it's a really cool custom !
I would love this color too for the Kaustic figure.
Is it an old Sideshow figure modified ?

Yes it's the old SS version.

 

[Buttmunch]

They look like super heroes...
It's missing to point.
It's not horror.
Wolfman is cool but again, it looks like Marvel's Wolf man.

Yep, that’s it. They do look too superhero-ish. I’ve seen plenty of non-classic Universal looks for these monsters before that I’ve liked or even loved. They missed the horror element and time period these characters are from. Dracula wouldn’t wear something like that in the 1800’s let alone now. I’m not against redesigns as a whole but they should be done carefully when there is the need. I’m glad they’re getting their own land in a theme park. I hope to go someday. I just wish it was closer to the 90’s Universal Studios Hollywood Monsters of my youth.

 

[Dr. Anton Phibes]

Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to look for Classic Monsters, not sporting Universal Monsters or Jack pierce make ups, might I suggest the following

1. Horror of Dracula. Fangs, ****, no fancy dress, just a black suit and a completely black cape
2. Curse of Frankenstein....no large lumbering boots necessary, as Lee was quite tall, and an altogether different take
3. The Mummy (1959) Lee again, and presented Kharis as unstoppable, and a powerhouse. No limping, shambling mummy here, and completely different make up style and effects
4. Curse of the Werewolf. No Lon Chaney Jr or Werewolf of London here....large, bulky, covered in hair, ****, and....wolf ears
5. Phantom of the Opera 1962...Herbert Lom, radical departure from Chaney. He's scarier masked than unmasked.

These were all made by Hammer, and it put them on the map. Taking classic source material, and making it their own. From 1957-1966 they were well and truly the king horror company. Then they started to stray sadly.

 

[Mondragon]

Universal Monsters Branding Logo

New monsters designs. Sorry I don’t have better pics.

Yeah, these are awful, For me Universal Monsters theme park should look like the classic Universal Monsters.

As far as the films becoming public domain in 30 years, correct me if I'm wrong, but people were already allowed to make their own versions and "look" of most, based on the original novels (eg the Hammer films etc.) that was never an issue.
What is protected, is Universal Trade Mark; TM., and that extends beyond copy right, so , eg the continued use of specific look design or symbol; bolts and flat top on Frankensteins monster, brides hair, etc... These are protected so long as they continue to use and trade/market them, this extends indefinitely.

These new design look like generic garbage, and if anything will weaken their classic trade marks if they let them lapse, in favor of marketing these new designs. (which I know I will never buy on t-shirt, in figure form, or any merch)



I'm no expert, yet don't think these new looks have anything to do with rights, and is just some ill-conceived and needless redesign, to look shamelessly hip and trending.

 

[Dr. Anton Phibes]

Don't think these new looks have anything to do with rights, and is just some ill-conceived and needless redesign, to look shamelessly hip and trending.

Mondragon, public domain has everything to do with it. All the corporations are having meetings. DC, Marvel, Universal, anyone with an IP that is approaching public domain status. Universal Monsters aren't exempt. In fact, the monsters are senior members. The very reason Hammer had to go radically different in their designs ages ago was because Universal was very active in protecting their trademarked make ups.

This is why, in Hammer's Evil of Frankenstein, much ado was made about Universal teaming with Hammer, and it is free of the continuity of other Hammer Frankenstein vehicles. So they could update and "improve" upon Pierce's make ups for the monster, and have the best of both worlds by incorporating Cushing. The end result was less than stellar.

These updated designs are absolutely to keep the IPs intact. So they can be called "Universal's Dracula", etc. Much the way there was a big push to replace superhero titles with new variations of classic characters. So that the IPs could be protected perpetually. It's all over the boards where far bigger brains than mine are discussing it. People in the industry in some cases. I'm just repeating what I have gleaned from these individuals, because I too despise the changes, and wondered why they did this.

 

[Mondragon]

because Universal was very active in protecting their trademarked make ups.

Exactly my point, the specific classic looks, designs, symbols are trademarked, and extend beyond copyright.
They are protected while they remain in use "traded" on merchandise, products, etc.
Which will likely continue to be available in the park stores on merch etc... Kaustic Plastic securing the rights to a specific look we all recognize, is ongoing proof of that.

These new looks, for the rides, are likely needless redesign, to look hip and trending.

the way there was a big push to replace superhero titles with new variations of classic characters. So that the IPs could be protected perpetually. It's all over the boards where far bigger brains than mine are discussing it. People in the industry in some cases. I'm just repeating what I have gleaned from these individuals, because I too despise the changes, and wondered why they did this

Without knowing which IP you are specifically referring to, it's hard to discus as there is some specific nuance to why new characters were created, neither are quite the same... Chaney estate reached a settlement agreement whereby Universal Studios is obligated to pay Chaney license fees.
The Superman IP for example was threatened, as the Siegel and Shuster estates pursued creative rights claims, DC shifted towards several rebrandings, that didn't directly reference the original. Yet once they settled, they went right back to the original.

Similarly yet different Spider-Man went through a nuanced rights transition, as the Ditko estate rightly persued claims to Amazing-Fantasy, Marvel created the legally distinct Miles Morales....

Mondragon, public domain has everything to do with it. ...

Yet neither had anything to do with rights lapsing into Public Domain, you might be conflating sevral different scenarios.

 

[Dr. Anton Phibes]

Exactly my point, these specific classic looks, designs, symbols are trademarked, and extend beyond copyright.
They are protected while they remain in use "traded" on merchandise, products, etc.
These new looks, are likely ill-conceived and needless redesign, to look hip and trending.

Well, they certainly did in 1964, but in 2031, which is only 7 years away, not so much.

Hence the advance circling of the wagons by legal. It's a thing.

Much the way Universal used to sidestep paying actors for their likeness under the make ups, they now are trying to find a way to keep a nab on monster names already in the publiuc domain, but their films are now reaching pd status also. Time's up, as it were.

Now families can use Universal's Make ups for Frankenstein, Phantom, Hunchback, Kharis, and The Wolfman as long as they are licensed through Chaney estates. Trick or Treat Studios is releasing all of Jack Pierce's make ups as those characters without any consent from Universal at all. The Chaneys won their suit. Glenn Strange's estate is currently looking into offering items of him as Frankenstein for the same reason. It's all up for grabs soon.

Of their new designs, Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster bear more a stronger resemblance to their appearance in Van Helsing, and Wolfman is a generic take on the 2010 Wolfman remake.

 

[Dr. Anton Phibes]

Sorry if this talk derailed the original discussion. I apologize. I just love monsters and find the behind the scenes stuff interesting. Back to one of the earlier points as to the monster's colors....these high end companies do seem to be taking a nod from customizers. Perhaps they will emualte Beto's Karloff Monster in paint scheme?

 

[GhostBeard]

New monsters designs. Sorry I don’t have better pics.

These are a sore spot around my house. When I first heard of the US' plans to make a Monsters themed area of the park I immediately imagined a classic, black and white gothic look with all the monsters displaying their iconic looks. Oh, what a naive, sweet summer child I was. As others have noted these are Marvel-ized versions of the classic monsters with (wait for it) Victoria Frankenstein at the helm trying to release them on a modern world. Victoria Frankenstein. Who asked for that?!

And the park designs look like Harry Potter land with Spirit Halloween store decorations. And they keep showing that burning windmill without mentioning its significance from the first Frankenstein, which doesn't make sense in the park as there is no Henry (Victor) Frankenstein so I guess its been on fire for almost 100 years now, even though it burned down at the end of the flick.

This is what happened with Disney's Galaxy's edge which doesn't have actual stormtroopers or the actual Millennium Falcon (look closely), and it's set nowhere from the movies so you can have your "own adventure" with characters from the failed Disney movies and shows. Ahhh!!!

So disappointed.

 

[batsheva]

From our standpoint, I think we can all say (at least generally here in this thread) that we don't like the update on the monsters. But maybe for the younger generations.. do they actually think the original monster design is boring? or unappealing?

The monsters were from the 30s, and I'm born 50+ years after, and I think the designs are brilliant. But of course, I can't speak for the 2000's kids.. born almost 70 years after..

 

[Dr. Anton Phibes]

I will probably take the trip to Universal's Monsters Land eventually, if I live so long. Will I enjoy it? Probably. Will I equate it with my beloved classics? Nope. I grew up with these monsters on late nite tv. My grandmother and father held these films in such high regard, it was almost a punishable offense to not speak highly of them,lol. When Sideshow had their hey day, I was in 7th heaven. If they can ever capture that magic they had in the 1960's and again 40-50 years later with Sideshow, they would be gold. I think that's what they are trying. if the funland at the park makes people look up the source material, and come to appreciate them, then it's a good idea.

Even if the purist inside of me views the redesigns as placing Whistler's Mother on a skateboard with tattoos and a vape pen hanging outta her jaw.

 

[mattjack]

Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to look for Classic Monsters, not sporting Universal Monsters or Jack pierce make ups, might I suggest the following

1. Horror of Dracula. Fangs, ****, no fancy dress, just a black suit and a completely black cape
2. Curse of Frankenstein....no large lumbering boots necessary, as Lee was quite tall, and an altogether different take
3. The Mummy (1959) Lee again, and presented Kharis as unstoppable, and a powerhouse. No limping, shambling mummy here, and completely different make up style and effects
4. Curse of the Werewolf. No Lon Chaney Jr or Werewolf of London here....large, bulky, covered in hair, ****, and....wolf ears
5. Phantom of the Opera 1962...Herbert Lom, radical departure from Chaney. He's scarier masked than unmasked.

These were all made by Hammer, and it put them on the map. Taking classic source material, and making it their own. From 1957-1966 they were well and truly the king horror company. Then they started to stray sadly.

I heard recently that these movies are not really well known in America. Is it true ?
In Europe everybody knows Lee as Dracula (okay not everybody. But every old people^^)

These movies are great.
The Devil Rides Out is good too.
The Hound of the Baskervilles is great
The Plague of the Zombies is a cool zombie movie.

Hammer started to stray in the 70s BUT...there is some good movies still. Dr. Jeckyll and Sister Hyde, despite a comical title, is a really interesting take on the myth with a gender swap.

 

[Damien]

Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to look for Classic Monsters, not sporting Universal Monsters or Jack pierce make ups, might I suggest the following

1. Horror of Dracula. Fangs, ****, no fancy dress, just a black suit and a completely black cape
2. Curse of Frankenstein....no large lumbering boots necessary, as Lee was quite tall, and an altogether different take
3. The Mummy (1959) Lee again, and presented Kharis as unstoppable, and a powerhouse. No limping, shambling mummy here, and completely different make up style and effects
4. Curse of the Werewolf. No Lon Chaney Jr or Werewolf of London here....large, bulky, covered in hair, ****, and....wolf ears
5. Phantom of the Opera 1962...Herbert Lom, radical departure from Chaney. He's scarier masked than unmasked.

These were all made by Hammer, and it put them on the map. Taking classic source material, and making it their own. From 1957-1966 they were well and truly the king horror company. Then they started to stray sadly.

more Christopher Lee is always good

 

[Dr. Anton Phibes]

I heard recently that these movies are not really well known in America. Is it true ?
In Europe everybody knows Lee as Dracula (okay not everybody. But every old people^^)

These movies are great.
The Devil Rides Out is good too.
The Hound of the Baskervilles is great
The Plague of the Zombies is a cool zombie movie.

Hammer started to stray in the 70s BUT...there is some good movies still. Dr. Jeckyll and Sister Hyde, despite a comical title, is a really interesting take on the myth with a gender swap.

Those films are excellent, all. Especially Hound of the Baskervilles. Cushing was my go to Sherlock Holmes until Jeremy Brett came along. I agree there are some gems and guilty pleasures in the 70's before they went really far off track. I love Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires. Cushing naturally carries the film, but the soundtrack is great, and the 70's Kung Fu action is sweet too. Scars of Dracula is good too except for some unnecessary humor at the beginning of the film.

 

[Kebron]

These are a sore spot around my house. When I first heard of the US' plans to make a Monsters themed area of the park I immediately imagined a classic, black and white gothic look with all the monsters displaying their iconic looks. Oh, what a naive, sweet summer child I was. As others have noted these are Marvel-ized versions of the classic monsters with (wait for it) Victoria Frankenstein at the helm trying to release them on a modern world. Victoria Frankenstein. Who asked for that?!

And the park designs look like Harry Potter land with Spirit Halloween store decorations. And they keep showing that burning windmill without mentioning its significance from the first Frankenstein, which doesn't make sense in the park as there is no Henry (Victor) Frankenstein so I guess its been on fire for almost 100 years now, even though it burned down at the end of the flick.

This is what happened with Disney's Galaxy's edge which doesn't have actual stormtroopers or the actual Millennium Falcon (look closely), and it's set nowhere from the movies so you can have your "own adventure" with characters from the failed Disney movies and shows. Ahhh!!!

So disappointed.

Have you been to Universal? Their theming is top notch. No reason to think the Dark Universe area will look like something from Spirit Halloween.

If you are looking at current photos, well the land is still under construction it's not done yet. In promo material they have talked about the significance of the burning windmill. Victor Frankenstein is in the backstory of the land. He's the great great grandfather of Victoria.

As for the windmill...it's a theme park, it's a neat effect, something to look at. You are WWWAAAYYY over thinking it.

As for Galaxy's Edge...I don't know what to tell you, they do have stormtroopers and the Falcon. I've been there several times.


Character designs aside, everything Universal has shown for Dark Universe looks fun and immersive and I look forward to being there when they open next year.

 

[Kebron]

From our standpoint, I think we can all say (at least generally here in this thread) that we don't like the update on the monsters. But maybe for the younger generations.. do they actually think the original monster design is boring? or unappealing?

The monsters were from the 30s, and I'm born 50+ years after, and I think the designs are brilliant. But of course, I can't speak for the 2000's kids.. born almost 70 years after..

It's nostalgia. I prefer the older looks myself, but I don't hate the newer looks. Stuff has to be updated to keep younger audiences interested. Several will disagree I'm sure, but there isn't one kid in my family or extended family interested in OT Star Wars, or Star Trek pre 2007. It looks "old", outdated, and it moves to slow for them. But put on the Star Wars sequel trilogy/Disney shows, or Star Trek SNW and Prodigy, and they are enthralled.

The classic Monsters are the same, they just look silly to them. But MEGAN, Abigail, Smile, or whatever mascot Halloween Horror Nights uses each year...those are creepy/scary to them.

 

[Kebron]

Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to look for Classic Monsters, not sporting Universal Monsters or Jack pierce make ups, might I suggest the following

1. Horror of Dracula. Fangs, ****, no fancy dress, just a black suit and a completely black cape
2. Curse of Frankenstein....no large lumbering boots necessary, as Lee was quite tall, and an altogether different take
3. The Mummy (1959) Lee again, and presented Kharis as unstoppable, and a powerhouse. No limping, shambling mummy here, and completely different make up style and effects
4. Curse of the Werewolf. No Lon Chaney Jr or Werewolf of London here....large, bulky, covered in hair, ****, and....wolf ears
5. Phantom of the Opera 1962...Herbert Lom, radical departure from Chaney. He's scarier masked than unmasked.

These were all made by Hammer, and it put them on the map. Taking classic source material, and making it their own. From 1957-1966 they were well and truly the king horror company. Then they started to stray sadly.

I love the Universal Classic monsters, but if I'm being honest, I prefer the Hammer Horror film versions. Hammer Horror were the films I grew up with watching most Saturdays. Ususally with some local TV horror host. I really miss those old local horror hosts. I know Svengoolie is still around and Elivra is kind of around, but the local ones with the sets that look like a home made haunted house and the cheesy dad joke like scetches were awesome to me.