#1943 Monster Movie

[esonetwork]

Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman | Episode 396

New Post has been published on https://esonetwork.com/frankenstein-meets-the-wolfman/

Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman | Episode 396

Jim pays tribute to Universal Studio’s first pairing of two of its iconic monsters in a feature film – 1943’s “Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman,”starring Lon Chaney Jr, Bela Lugosi, Patric Knowles, Ilona Massey, Maria Ouspenskaya, Lionel Atwill, and Dwight Frye. On a quest to find Dr. Frankenstein, Larry Talbott crosses paths with “The Monster.” Find out moe about this historical meeting on this episode of MONSTER ATTACK!, The Podcast Dedicated To Old Monster Movies.

[weirdlookindog]

Lon Chaney Jr. in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)

[atomic-chronoscaph]

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)

[schlock-luster-video]

On June 1, 1949, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man was re-released in the United States.

[contentabnormal]

This week on Content Abnormal we present a spooky installment of Arch Oboler's Lights Out featuring a terrifying tale called "Murder Castle"!

[askfoxythejokerfox]

NECA TMNT X Universal Monsters: Phantom Casey Jones

[shutyourfacemonsterlover]

Overall thoughts and opinions on the most famous Phantom adaptations / most famous Eriks

Because these things are fun, i thought maybe it could be interesting for me to reunite my overall thoughts on the most popular adaptations, because everybody has opinions on them (and maybe my takes are super cold and vanilla). Still, it's fun!

I'm also gonna go with the most popular because there are like a million Phantom adaptations and I don't have the energy to rank them all. (i'm also mostly doing the ones that are series / shows / musicals- the books i would pretty much mostly mention the Leroux OG and Kay, and i'm already going somewhere with the second one). (Forgive me all Ken Hill / Song at Midnight / MazM fans)

-The 1925 silent film with Lon Chaney: I'm really biased, but I admit this is my favorite Phantom adaptation, even if i know as a film it's rather limited by the constraints of the era (bad acting, slow pacing, the weird whitewashing of the Persian etc etc). It downplays the tragic romantic elements of the story (Christine is very one-dimensional and seems more afraid of Erik than empathetic), and Erik is written a little too "generic evil villain", but there are elements to suggest that there's more to Erik than meets the eye, and why he's an engaging figure in the first place. Yeah, like most, i hate the ending, but it's saved by overall faithfulness to the novel (he's born deformed! he has a death's head! he has a life of tragedy! he loves Christine! you can't imagine the number of adaptations that don't get these simple things RIGHT), and the subtle moments Chaney adds to make his Erik more three dimensional (the moment in the Apollo's Lyre scene where he holds his mouth in pain lives in my head rent free) It has my favorite movie Erik, and that's all that matters to me. <3 8/10

-The 1943 film with Claude Rains: I always call this film "missed potential". It looks beautiful, it sounds beautiful, it has good quotes, I like the film delving more into Christine's character; but the Abbott and Costello comedy of the two Raouls is out of place, and the writing of Erique is kinda of a mess (and considering he's the most important character in POTO...YEAH a good adaptation depends a lot on his writing). You don't really understand what is his connection with Christine, and how his initial sympathetic scenes kinda clash with his more violent streak (he gets thrown acid in the first place because he kills a man pre-Phantom); making the character come off as a little inconsistent and not as sympathetic as he should be. This movie also started the "disfigured in an accident, no Persian" versions of Phantom that I feel kinda cheapen the story later on (a lifetime of tragedy is what shaped Erik, not "one bad day"). A real shame, because Rains carries an elegance to Erik that I think helps with the imagery of the character (a monster trying so much to be "human"). Hmm...6.5/10

-The 1962 with Herbert Lom. This one also changes a bit, and normally i'd be bitching and moaning about it, but i prefer the changes here to the Claude Rains version since they're more consistent in portraying Erik's character. You feel for his music being stolen, and want to see this artist have such a simple dream as seeing his creation come true. People don't like it erases his obsession with Christine, but i think here it works, since you can believe his passion for his art is what drives him. (Also, i think this movie is what started the trend of Phantom adaptations having another villain, which is something explored better in Phantom of the Paradise). It doesn't look as nice as the Claude Rains film, tho, and something in the acting stops it from going the most. 6/10

-Phantom of the Paradise: A BLAST. It changes a lot about the source material, but considering even the setting is different, everything works to its advantage. Winslow is the first Phantom that really delves well into the "tragic monster" element of the character, with even his violent tendencies being a consistent trait from the start of the story (he attacks Philbin for making an inoffensive comment about the Juicy Fruits). The imagery is distinctive, Swan is a very compelling villain, and the songs are fantastic. Winslow's sacrifice, like Lindsay Ellis said, is simply a progression from his acts in the novel (yes, I believe Erik would sacrifice himself to guarantee Christine's safety, post development). What only sucks is that I don't feel you buy Winslow's passion for Christine / Phoenix, and she comes off as inconsistent in her ambition and not as empathetic (still, she sings very nicely and I love that the actress resembles Mary Philbin (1925 Christine) at times). Also while the Faustian elements add to the movie, i'm not sure how they can relate to Erik's' character in general (not to mention the Dorian Gray element). Also the pacing in the last 10 minutes is rushed and kinda sucks. But still...As a movie? It's my favorite. 9/10

-The Maximilliam Schell 1983 made for TV film: My least favorite, and it all has to do with how slow and dull the pacing is, you just don't get the sense of dread or tragedy. The reincarnated wife subplot is really random, and it makes Sandor pathetic and delusional instead of empathetic and tragic. And i'll take bad over boring any day of the week. 2/10

-ALW's musical (add here the 25th version too): Oh ho ho, the one piece of media that got us all into Phantom I think. It's a big, bombastic musical, and you can see the appeal. While i don't like some characters are turned more one-dimensional (Raoul, Christine); I do like how it pushes forward Erik's trauma, and how it has broken him; he's not a good man, no, but not a monster, either. And this idea that abuse victims can turn cruel as well...But, you know, they still deserve love. Perhaps they always did! And the focus on the romance which puritans complain about...Boy you will not be ready to hear me when i tell you the original novel implies Christine is indeed into both Raoul and Erik, for different reasons lol. I dont like the omission of the Persian, but I like that this cements that again, Erik wasn't a rando who one day snapped, it was a life of tragedy that turned him into what he is....We can dislike it, we can like it, but we can admit it has influenced our perception of the story in more ways than one. 8/10.

-The 1988 cartoon: The most faithful adaptation of the novel is also the cheapest movie of the bunch. Whew lads...Tho I do like Erik's character. He's got the redemption, the deformity, the sense of humor (when i read Erik i often headcanon him having this Erik's voice). I also like Christine, she's not written as a bland damsel, she shows a bit of an attitude. And hey, rare Persian appearance! I even like the ending, with the cast showing compassion towards Erik's misfortune. It's just that the technical limitations of the movie avoid the film from reaching high status. 6.5/10

-1989 with Robert Englund: An unpopular opinion, but I love this film. It's strange in that it's both very faithful to the novel, adapting the gothic horror of the elements, but it changes way too much Erik's character (the crux of the story) into somebody who isn't really tragic or sympathetic. A musician who sells his soul to the devil (an element it took from Phantom of the Paradise...I have the theory that Phantom adaptations take elements from each other more than from the novel) and gains immortality...and kills people for no reason??? Normally, in another adaptation, I would dislike a lot this change, but Englund's interpretation turns the character into more layers than simply a psychopathic asshole. He gets the "allure" and horror of Erik, which is a big part of the character. I feel with a more book accurate backstory, and impulse more the angle of "doomed dark lover" with Christine (yes his love is also...downplayed), this would easily be one of the more popular Eriks. Yeah it steals a lot from Nightmare on Elm Street, but there's an interesting movie in here, amidst the music and the beautiful cinematography...8/10.

-The 1990 miniseries with Charles Dance: Cherik! The phandom darling! This one is strange since i feel it diverges from the novel as much as the Robert Englund version, yet it's one of the most beloved adaptations. It offers an interesting interpretation of Erik, he's not as cruel, but the movie delves more into the aspect of him being a doomed romantic lover. He's not as manipulative to his Christine (i'd argue this is one version of the story where they should've gotten together imo), and has a gentler approach to life. The series takes the element of the book of him having arrested development and runs with it. Still tho, the gentler approach kinda cuts the tragedy of the character; what with loving parents and all being something Erik DIDNT have growing up. The appearance of the father is what dulls the film, and makes Erik come off as more dependent and childish. Still, Charles Dance gives his Erik a quiet dignity, that avoids the character falling into a manchild interpretation. 7/10 (not bad, just that i like my Eriks more lonely and threatening)

-The 1998 film of Dario Argento: Y'all owe Gerard Butler an apology, lol. This is the ONE truly shit adaptation of Phantom, lol. It feels like a fever dream. It's more gross than scary, it's not tragic, it's not romantic, Erik is not in any way sympathetic or complex or alluring...Like the fuck lol. 3/10 (and that 3 is because it makes me laugh...)

-Wishbone "Pantin' at the Opera" episode: Eh, "Phantom for kids", not a interpretation of the story I like, but it's accurate to the novel, which makes it stand out. And it gives Erik a rare happy ending! Tho, as expected since it's for kids, it downplays a lot of the more complex themes. Still...gotta praise the accuracy. 5/10

-2004 with Gerard Butler: I don't think it's as bad as the phandom made it out for years. It could be better, but i think the technical details and the bad makeup are what drag the film down, since it doesn't diverge massively from the story or themes (except the weird grooming thing...ew). This Erik is interesting in that much like Cherik, he grew up inside the Opera House, and it's an unique view of the character, that he's got arrested development due to never leaving his own "house" growing up (a bit of a plot hole then how he learned magic, engineering, architecture, etc etc, but eeeeh). He's also more vulnerable and emotional compared to the stage counterpart, who seems more self assured and angry. It's not horrible, just average, and could be better. 6.5/10

-The cartoon episode of the Triplets with Phantom (aired in the 2000s-something): Phantom for kids again. it's not an interpretation of the story in general that i like (too fluffy for my liking), but this episode gets the points of the story; Christine's complex feelings and Erik's redemption, while still keeping his initial wickedness (he even gets a sorta happy ending! my boy!). also it's funny at times, so there's that. 6/10

-Love Never Dies: This is...frustrating. I'm of the unpopular opinion that a sequel focused on Erik can work, but I feel his story with Christine is over, and dragging it back again just places the characters in square one, their development null. As an original story, it can be a potential good drama, but with these established characters, a lot of the emotions feel forced and manufactured. 5/10

So overall...My favorite versions of Erik and the story are...the musical and Chaney? And Paradise and Robert Englund for the wild out there versions. But there's always something missing, i can't always point to one and go "THAT is the definitive Erik". Erik is a very complex character, made of light and shadows, and the movies never reflect that.

I don't think most of these movies are good, we like them because they're Phantom content, but still, it's interesting to observe how this story has changed reflecting the interests of society at the time being. Before, we wanted this cruel monster punished...Then we turned him into an 80s slasher...And now in the monster fucker era we see him as a potential romantic lead...Huh.

[brokehorrorfan]

I Walked with a Zombie and The Seventh Victim will be released on 4K Ultra HD, Blu-ray, and DVD together on October 8 via The Criterion Collection. Katherine Lam designed the cover art for Val Lewton productions.

1943's I Walked with a Zombie is directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People) and written by Curt Siodmak (The Wolf Man) and Ardel Wray. James Ellison, Frances Dee, and Tom Conway star.

1943's The Seventh Victim is directed by Mark Robson (Earthquake) and written by DeWitt Bodeen (Cat People) and Charles O'Neal. Tom Conway, Jean Brooks, Isabel Jewell, and Kim Hunter star.

Both films have been newly restored in 4K with uncompressed monaural soundtracks. Special features are listed below.

Special features:

I Walked with a Zombie audio commentary by film historians Kim Newman and Stephen Jones

The Seventh Victim audio commentary by film historian Steve Haberman

Interview with film historian Imogen Sara Smith

Audio essays from Adam Roche's podcast The Secret History of Hollywood

Shadows in the Dark: The Val Lewton Legacy - 2005 documentary on producer Val Lewton featuring William Friedkin, Guillermo del Toro, George A. Romero, John Landis, Robert Wise, Neil Gaiman, and more

Trailers

Booklet with essays by critics Chris Fujiwara and Lucy Sante

Terror lives in the shadows in a pair of mesmerizingly moody horror milestones conjured from the imagination of Val Lewton, the visionary producer-auteur who turned our fears of the unseen and the unknown into haunting excursions into existential dread. As head of RKO’s B-horror-movie unit during the 1940s, Lewton, working with directors such as Jacques Tourneur and Mark Robson, brought a new sophistication to the genre by wringing chills not from conventional movie monsters but from brooding atmosphere, suggestion, and psychosexual unease. Suffused with ritual, mysticism, and the occult, the poetically hypnotic I Walked with a Zombie and the shockingly subversive The Seventh Victim are still-tantalizing dreams of death that dare to embrace the darkness.

[thenightling]

Nosferatu 2024

I will say this, the movie has a great ambiance. It is aesthetically gorgeous. Nosferatu will hopefully rekindle a trend in classic style unironic, un-deconstructed, Gothic horror. That being said the movie's premise is almost exactly like the original 1922 film, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since many people haven't seen the original silent film. (Side note: I want a remake of F. W. Murnau's 1926 Faust in this style from the same production team!). The few changes are mildly disturbing, including ...grief necrophilia? Anyway, the original 1922 film was the very first time a vampire died via sunlight in fiction, before Universal studios would borrow it for Son of Dracula in 1943 and from 1943 onward American films and TV usually had vampires burning in the sun. So, of course, the way Count Orlok is destroyed had to remain in tact. One change that annoyed me slightly was the film indicated that Nosferatu is a particular TYPE of vampire that spreads plague. It's true there were plague rats in the original 1922 film but Nosferatu, the word, just means vampire- not a specific type of vampire. I do like that there is some new emphasis on the idea that Count Orlok was a sorcerer when he was alive and there was apparently more occult content. As the original Nosferatu was a "version of Dracula with the serial number filed off" you will notice there are some similarities to the 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula, aesthetically, and plot-wise. Nosferatu's plot was always Dracula with some minor changes and character name changes, and the count getting a physical redesign. Bram Stoker's widow even successfully sued the 1922 production and a court ordered that all copies of the film be destroyed. Thankfully prints of the film survived long enough for Dracula to go into the public domain so the court order did not have to be carried out. (Let's hope someone doesn't try to have it enforced one day to try to squeeze some money over to the Stoker estate). So in short, Nosferatu (2024) IS an aesthetically beautiful Gothic horror film that I hope will initiate a trend in the style. But I will say this, I still think Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) is a better movie even though it adds a love story that was not in Stoker's novel, most of it, otherwise is still (in my opinion) the most faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. That Mina / Dracula love story is a guilty pleasure of mine, by the way. This latest Nosferatu movie makes the Blue Oyster Cult song, about the 1922 film, get stuck in my head. Also Bill Skarsgard is really starting to make a name for himself playing monsters. I hope it lasts. I still say Doug Jones is the best current monster movie actor. But Bill comes close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gts2yGraydk

[anhed-nia]

So I'm in the middle of this research project centered on Dario Argento's OPERA, for which I have required myself to watch as many screen adaptations of the Gaston Leroux novel The Phantom of the Opera as I can take. What I have determined so far is that the Phantom of the Opera is a story everyone wants to tell, but not very many people are sure of how to tell it. In fact, it's not that easy to say what it is about archetypally. You know, Wolfman stories are typically about "the beast in man" (with femininity positioned as some sort of cure for this personality split), Frankenstein stories are usually about human nature (i.e. an uncanny creature can have more humanity than vain and bigoted humans), Dracula-type vampire stories are most generally about the problems of being an outsider (queer, foreign, etc). But Phantom of the Opera is like...well, everyone likes the love story part of it, which is more or less modeled on Dracula, with a woman torn between seductive darkness and the safety of square society. But then there are all these other parts that seem to flummox people in the retelling.

I haven't read the Leroux novel YET but the first round of movies have been interesting, and also sort of perplexing. The iteration from 1925 holds up, largely due to Chaney's creation of the Phantom which remains a top tier monster. People don't often talk about the mask though! Which looks like a cross between Peter Lorre and the Devo Boogie Boy, it's disturbing and I like it.

This Phantom was born in the dungeons during a revolutionary bloodbath and is disfigured from birth, drawing on the antique idea that a mother's trauma is translated in the deformity of her children; also, compellingly, these dungeons lie fathoms beneath the opera house where the bourgeoisie are witlessly dancing on the graves of martyrs and criminals embodied in the Phantom. The ingenue Christine is an interesting figure who breaks up with her boyfriend at the beginning because she wants to give her whole self to her career; when the Phantom starts murmuring to her through the walls it's as if the spirit of opera itself has chosen her to be its avatar, which she seems to find totally rational. It's sort of cool, what other movie of this era has a likeable heroine choosing her potential for greatness over love? This is the element of the story that is the most interesting, but I'll expand on that in a minute.

The Chaney edition benefits a lot from keeping things simple. The 1943 version with Claude Raines has a little bit too much going on and the story doesn't get a lot of time to congeal between so many long opera sequences; this movie really takes the opera part of the title seriously! Actually they're the best thing about it, mostly because of Nelson Eddy who is extremely beautiful and a real opera singer, and who projects this blazing desire for Susanna Foster that is incredibly convincing. Like I'd normally say they have great chemistry, but I think it's just a lot of power radiating from him specifically.

Ahem.

Uh anyway. This movie picks up the reoccurring (but not universal) idea that the Phantom is a genteel and sophisticated composer who has just fallen on hard times, who goes mad when his latest concerto is stolen. He is disfigured while struggling with the plagiarist and installs himself under the opera house where he can haunt his former protege Christine, who is already torn between dreamy Nelson Eddy and her stuffy cop boyfriend. One of my favorite things here is that even though this film is extremely quaint and old fashioned, everybody hates cops; this Christine is less a self-determined careerist than someone who is under pressure from her artist friends who find it profoundly repulsive that she is dating a policeman. Meanwhile the Phantom is just way too gentle and sappy, which is extra disappointing because Claude Rains's Invisible Man is so fabulously chaotic and sadistic, it made me really aware of the Phantom that could have been. This one doesn't properly represent the high society vs. underworld dichotomy that Christine should be torn between. So what is this movie about? There's so many guys in it and a few different themes flapping in the breeze. Is it about love? Is it about self-actualizing through art? Is it about the cutthroat world of showbusiness? It doesn't have that much to say, ultimately, and it just seems really unmotivated. Also I don't like this mask, sue me.

The Hammer edition is even more disappointing, considering the studio's previous successes with Universal Monster remakes. Here Christine is torn between a suave opera producer, the lecherous composer who has plagiarized the Phantom, and yeah the Phantom. Too many guys, it confuses whatever the dynamic and themes are supposed to be. Michael Gough as the plagiarist is so much more evil and threatening than poor Herbert Lom's Phantom that it's hard to stay focused on the main point here. Curiously the Hammer version is rather unromantic, with the Phantom just slapping Christine around until she sings his tunes right; that is kind of refreshing in a way, although it also means that the film lacks tension, which contributes to its being surprisingly anticlimactic. The best guy in the movie is actually Thorley Walters whose character serves almost no narrative purpose at all, he just hulks around with this WTF? look on his face and it is kind of adorable. I guess I like the gross mask in this one, too.

But the Hammer version has one interesting strength, which is that Christine is singing the lead in a new opera about Joan of Arc. Just like Joan, Christine hears a disembodied voice prophesizing her ascent to power. The best thing about the Phantom lore is the idea that the woman has this latent power that can either be activated by the Phantom, or suppressed by her square boyfriend (the relationship being mutually exclusive with opera stardom in many iterations). She isn't just a love object to be possessed, she herself possesses of some kind of devastating energy that needs to be awakened and channeled--or contained and forgotten, if she decides to get married and stay home or something. This is pretty cool, and it is interestingly realized in Dario Argento's OPERA, in which (spoiler alert I guess) a killer stalks an opera singer with the aim of catalyzing her own latent psychopathy. This idea is at the center of my thesis and I'm looking forward to fleshing it out, although I'm kind of dreading all the other PHANTOMs that I have committed myself to watching. I really don't want to deal with Andrew LLoyd Webber at all, but after I get through at least the Joel Schumacher one of the those I'm going to reward myself with a rewatch of PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE which I'm going to guess right now is the best retelling of this story after the Chaney one. I'm counting on Paul Williams' music to be catchier than Webber's.

I'm whining about my own decisions, I know, but really the main hardship of this project is that now I keep getting the Vandals' punk theme song from PHANTOM OF THE MALL: ERIC'S REVENGE stuck in my head, and let me tell you that is very unwelcome. Here it is, if you've decided you're done being happy and sane:

[amazingmrcinema007]

My October watches part 3. Martin was a big surprise. I really loved that one. I really wanted to like The Slime People but it was pretty dull outside of the neat monsters. I had to cap off Halloween with at least one of the Halloween movies and it was a Halloween II kind of night I was feeling.

Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932): ★★★/5

Talk to Me (2022): ★★★.5/5

The Return of the Vampire (1943): ★★★.5/5

The Slime People (1963): ★/5

Martin (1977): ★★★★★/5

In a Violent Nature (2024): ★★★.5/5

Dressed to Kill (1980): ★★★.5/5

Cemetery of Terror (1985): ★★★.5/5

Grave Torture (2024): ★★★.5/5

The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953): ★★★.5/5

Halloween II (1981): ★★★.5/5

[frozen-snowflakesandsunflowers]

Disney 100 ✨🏰🤍

Wishing you all a happy new year and to Disney, a belated 100th anniversary! 🎉

To celebrate Disney’s century milestone, I created an illustration based on 100 of Disney’s most known and loved characters from their respective movies/ series. I’ve included all the ones I’ve known and feel are generally popular but I’m sorry if your personal favourites aren’t here.

This has been in the works for almost four months now but due to many delays I couldn’t finish it on time. So here it finally is!

Out of all these range characters, the hardest to draw was the Cars. I’m not used to drawing cars so I’m not generally good at them (yet). Some of these may look simple and easy to draw but trust me, they’re not 😂.

With drawing the characters and the background, I like to be accurate with the respective style it’s drawn/ animated in and the colours too. But also I wanted to also simplify the 3D ones and add a little depth using shadow to the 2D ones. For example some of these films would have a desaturated grainy effect to it and I wanted to keep that. But finally after months of working on it, it’s completed and I’m happy with it! ✨.

Please, please do check it out on Instagram too:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Zahra Sarfraz (@artofzahrasarfraz)

If this link doesn't work, my username is @/artofzafrasarfraz - it's where I put all my drawings up on. Please do share on stories and comment. Much appreciated 🥹🫶🏼🤍

All the 100 characters featured in this piece are listed below:

1927: Trolley Troubles / Oswald The Lucky Rabbit (2022): Oswald

1937: Snow White: Snow White and the Evil Queen

1941: Dumbo: Dumbo and Timothy Q. Mouse

1942: Bambi: Thumper and Bambi

1943: Private Pluto: Chip and Dale

1944: The Lion King: (Child) Simba

1949: Pinocchio: Pinocchio

1950: Cinderella: Cinderella

1951: Alice In Wonderland: Alice, Cheshire cat and Mad Hatter

1953: Peter Pan: Peter Pan and Tinker Bell

1959: Sleeping Beauty: Aurora and Maleficent

1963: The Sword in the Stone: Arthur Pendragon

1964: Mary Poppins: Mary Poppins

1967: 101 Dalmatians: Cruella De Vil and Patch | Jungle Book: Mowgli and Baloo

1970: Aristocats: Toulouse, Marie and Berlioz

1973: Robin Hood: Robin Hood

1977: The Many Adventures of Winnie The Pooh: Winnie-the-Pooh and Christopher Robin

1989: The Little Mermaid: Ariel, Flounder, Sebastian and Ursula

1991: Beauty And The Beast: Belle

1992: Aladdin: Aladdin, Jasmine and the Genie

1993: Steamboat Willie/ Mickey Mouse Series: Mickey & Minnie Mouse | Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas: Jack Skellingtion

1995: Lady and the Tramp: Lady & Tramp | Toy Story: Woody and Buzz Light-year | Pocahontas: Pocahontas

1997: Hercules: Hercules & Megara

1998: Mulan: Mulan | A Bug's Life: Flik

2000: The Emperor's New Groove: Kuzco

2001: Monsters Inc: Sulley, Mike and Mary Gibbs aka Boo

2002: Lilo & Stitch: Lilo and Stitch

2003: Finding Nemo: Nemo and Dory

2004: The Incredibles - Helen Parr aka Elastic girl, Robert (Rob) Parr aka Mr. Incredible, Jack-Jack Parr and Edna Mode

2006: Cars: Lighting McQueen and Tow Mater

2007: Enchanted: Giselle Phillip

2008: WALL - E: Wall-E & Eve | Phineas and Ferb: Phineas Flynn and Ferb Fletcher

2009: The Princess and the Frog: Tiana | UP: Carl Fredricksen and Dug

2010: Tangled: Rapunzel & Flynn Ryder aka Eugene Fitzherbert and Pascal

2012: BRAVE: Merida | Wreck-It Ralph: Wreck-It Ralph and Vanellope Von Schweetz

2013: Frozen: Elsa, Anna and Olaf

2014: Big Hero Six: Baymax

2015: Inside Out: Joy and Sadness

2016: Moana: Moana | Zootopia (2016): Nick Wilde & Judith (Judy) Laverne Hopps

2017: COCO: Miguel Rivera

2020: Soul: Joe and 22

2021: Luca: Luca | Encanto: Mirabel and Isabella Mardigal | Raya And The Last Dragon: Raya

2022: Red Panda: Mei Lee aka the Red Panda

2023: Elemental: Ember Lumen & Wade Ripple | Wish: Asha and Star

[weirdlookindog]

Bela Lugosi in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)

[scooby-review]

Scooby Doo Where are You? S1 E9-E12

9. The Backstage Rage

The Backstage Rage is an episode I don’t see talked about all too much! There’s not really any representation through merchandise, he doesn’t have any reappearances like many of the villains in Where are You? merely receiving a comic adaptation, which as far as I can tell, every episode did. Yet, this is one of my favourites for sure. 

This episode follows the gang heading to an abandoned theatre after a case of counterfeit money is stolen from them by a puppet. It’s a simple concept, yet they push the villain and theming perfectly, the episode focusing more on its atmosphere and scares rather than jokes, it’s something we rarely see, yet when we do it works so much better. Similarly to how Zombie Island managed to terrify so many people, because when you know one thing for so long and suddenly it’s all wrong, the tone darker and more serious, you suddenly feel a whole lot less safe. Of course, this episode doesn’t fully commit to a darker tone, but it does feel creepier in many places! 

I think this episode's strongest quality is the Puppet Master, through the strong themes he draws in, his great design and general creepiness spread throughout the episode. To start with his design, he feels somewhat evocative of the titular Phantom of the Opera, specifically through the masks of the 1943 movie and the cloak, it’s not all too overt, yet the characters definitely feel connected. Curiously, this is one of three links to the Universal Monster movies within the four batches of episodes here, a strange coincidence! It’s also the least obvious of them. Beyond this however, I just find the colours to be so strong, he feels so ominous with his darkened cloak, the only streak of colour within his cape, a flowing river of crimson. 

The villain’s plot here is counterfeiting money, which ties perfectly into the theme of the puppets, these wooden inventions created for the sole purpose of tricking those who see them into believing them to be human, but they’re not. They’re fakes, cheap imitations that keep people long enough to realise they’ve been tricked, by which time it’s too late. We see this in the opening as Scooby is tricked by a girl dog (you can tell because she’s a white poodle with a pink bow), focusing on her while his money is stolen. This all links perfectly with the counterfeit money, it looks real and by the time you realise it’s not, it’s too late. Thematically, this episode is likely the strongest. 

Also the puppets just rule. Specifically a scene where the gang talk to a doorman, Pietro, returning later after a chase where they talk to him, his head slipping down his body. He was a puppet. It’s such an eerie scene, and sure, he’s the villain in reality, the first time we meet him it’s actually him, I think, but it’s such a great way of switching the way the audience is thinking, it’s unsettling and perfect. 

There’s so many new puppets, we see a show later on, watching as they’re animated seemingly without any control. The trope of haunted dolls can be seen throughout time, in media ranging from Goosebumps to The Conjuring. They aren’t haunted come the end, but the presence of the Puppet Master gives this idea of him controlling them without being there, the ruler of the puppets. It’s great and I love it so much. 

All this ties in perfectly with the setting of the abandoned theatre, the backgrounds filled with costumes and generating a generally creepy tone. Within the theatre there’s a door hidden within a harp case! It’s such a cool and weird little idea I love it! The theatre comes to life with its patented Scooby-Doo secret passageways! One of which comes to life through the use of musical notes, which is reminiscent of the film The Ghost Breakers, which Ruby-Spears cited as a huge inspiration during the creation of the show.

I also made a few notes on the animation in this episode! One moment depicts Scooby shaking his head, but his face is animated so fluidly, it’s slow and janky sure, but parts of his face move that previously have always been static, giving a really long and jarring sequence that I really don’t love! However, Pietro and his puppet Johnny are animated so well here, for sure it looked the best the show ever has to me, so that’s worth pointing out! All the puppetry here is animated so well! Just a really great one! Not sure why it isn’t more popular! Looking on IMDB it’s like the middle of the rankings, but I’m not sure how representative it is of peoples thoughts overall, most websites ranking things tend to be kind of a bubble, it depends on the users there. But regardless, I love this, one of my favourites ever! 

10. Bedlam in the Big Top

This episode sees the gang stumbling across a circus, learning that it’s haunted by a ghost clown. It’s such an iconic episode based on this alone, the character and the setting are instantly recognisable! I think with this being the show's first iteration, other than the repeated haunted houses or castles, we don’t see much repetition in where the gang go, or what kind of villain they face, other than most of them being ghosts. Because of that it makes Where are You?’s villains the most memorable, but of course, time is also a factor. Plus, I think the villains stand out so much because they do a lot of the heavy lifting in these more formulaic episodes. Whereas looking at something like Mystery Incorporated, most probably think of Mr. E rather than a specific monster. This version of the show is defined by aesthetics, which the monster’s seep into heavily. 

As a child, I was terrified of clowns, I think for most this is a result of their looks and the inability to communicate, although I personally was afraid after going to the circus and having a fear of participating. However in pop-culture, a fear of clowns can be derived usually from the evil clown trope. Now people likely think of Pennywise as the definitive scary clown, he’s the mascot for it now. Simply however, the trope comes from a subversion, clowns throughout history are intended to be funny, their origins dating back to classical Greek plays. Although the creepy clown trope can be dated back at least to Edgar Allan Poe’s “Hop-Frog”, the creepy clown trope of the late 60s likely comes from The Joker, who, outside of the horror genre, is the most popular creepy clown. Yet, the trope was young at the time of this episode’s release, often cited as a pretty early example of the trope; every few decades there’s a resurgence in what ignites the trope, such as serial killers, books and movies and the 2016 internet fuelled craze. The entire concept is loaded and there’s a plethora of reasons why we find clowns scary, but a lot of the modern scary clown comes from depictions we see, such as the ghost clown within this episode. 

I think the ghost clown carries a lot of this pretty solid episode, it’s a long spiel of his antics, they’re pretty fun playing on the circus setting, and while scary for sure, the episode is very gag driven rather than clue driven. Usually these are the two directions a Where are You? episode will go in, following clues that lead to the capturing of the villain, or the villain taunts them in a series of gags. Both work, and this one definitely takes the right option for its subject. 

Most of the horror of this one comes from the clown’s hypnotism abilities, where he will hypnotise a member of the gang to do something like Daphne on the unicycle or Scooby on the tightrope. Ultimately, these play out the same, it gives a sort of repetition to the episode that harms it, but it’s still an enjoyable time using its setting to great effect. 

Plus the clown has such a striking design, the bright flashy red costume and bulbous nose contrasting with the white makeup, it’s perfect! His design is just off putting, but again, I think that maybe comes from growing up in a society afraid of clowns, likely more so than the 1969 audience! 

Despite mentioning a redundancy, I will say I love the rubber ladder and balloon popping sequences. The first is merely a silly gag, it works well in the context of the episode placing a new roadblock in the gang's way, but the balloon popping is tense, it shows how the clown is ready to place the gang in actual harm's way. This all links into the villain being the most evil we have seen so far, his motive being that he was fired from the circus and sent to prison, therefore he wanted revenge, this revenge either being closing the circus down for good, murder, or both! Who knows, but the episode is unique in how willing they are to place the gang in danger, although the only one that really works for me is the Scooby one. The previous episode did this better I feel, putting the gang in more physical danger, yet not over doing it. 

I also love Shaggy’s characterisation here! Again, we see a sporty side to him, I think he’s maybe the best written character of the gang, with Daphne and Fred being the weakest despite having some merit. But having him do track at school not only makes the world feel more alive, but the character feels deeper!

Pretty fun one! Love the gorgeous backgrounds here and the villain a whole bunch, plus the gags are mostly good too! I completely get why the clown is so merchandised and popular. 

11. A Gaggle of Galloping Ghosts

What a fun little title! 

A Gaggle of Galloping Ghosts follows the gang entering Franken Castle, despite warnings from a nearby fortune teller of an unfavourable fate if they do. 

I’m not going to discuss the fortune teller in a similar depth to most the other characters here, mostly because the character is pretty infamously a racist caricature of a Romani fortune teller, who ultimately is a white man in a costume, which around this time was likely how many people saw these types of people, their culture reduced to a single image slathered across pop-culture and halloween costumes. Consistently the character is described with a slur. The entire character here sucks, and it’s a trope within this season, at least, that if a non-white character appears, they’re the villain, which we can see in the following episode, and I believe is only broken in the finale. Still, this character is marketed and popular, despite more awareness about this depiction being harmful, this character lives on. 

Other than this aspect, I enjoy how the episode is a fun tribute to classic monster movies, it feels like House of Dracula or House of Frankenstein, in the way it includes three classical characters, all running around a castle. It’s so much fun seeing the three of them running around here! I’ll move through them all before getting any deeper into the episode. 

Firstly, we have Dracula, who is by far my favourite of the three. Created by Bram Stoker, the character’s design echoes the Universal Monster’s design for him, with a black cloak and red lining and a more human appearance rather than being ghoulish. Being the only one of the three who talks, Dracula stands out amongst the rest, and sure, all of them are distinctive, I think he carries the episode where the others are unable to, he offers something completely different, being mostly human. Cognitively, he can think better than the other two creatures, therefore, delivering some humanity. Also I love his ability to turn into a bat, so fun, and I’m also a big fan of the white, chalky skin he has. 

Next we meet Frankenstein’s Monster, this look again is directly inspired by the Universal Monster’s character. Of the three here, I’ve only seen these first two, but I prefer Frankenstein! As for the books, I don’t think I have a preference, I think I preferred reading Dracula, but overall enjoy Frankenstein more. Regardless, this design is a hulking character, stalking the characters endlessly through the castle. It gives this impossible feeling to him, as if you’ll never be able to shake him off. 

Finally, there’s, who I deem to be, the weakest of the three, the Wolfman. Only meeting the gang once, the character is also inspired by the Universal Monster, a completely original character there, which is why he’s so different in contrast to the other two. I don’t love this design, he looks so ghoulish, his werewolf side feels lost. I enjoy the stockier design, but the lack of fur makes it difficult to know what he is just by looking, although I guess this closer links him as a human and wolf, a literal wolfman, sure, but the movie it’s taking inspiration from also does this, I just find the purpley skin to be a mit much in this design. Also, he does the least, I find his antics the least interesting. 

Although we never see the three together in the same scene, all of them played by the same villain, I do enjoy this set up, the castle feels truly haunted and inescapable! 

Speaking of the castle, the Frankenstein name added to it is certainly earnt, containing a lab among other gothic elements that places it closest to that character rather than the other two. It’s a great place to be in, and I don’t find myself tired of the castles because of how they vary them when we’re here! Plus, these characters were made for gothic castles! 

I enjoy some of the character stuff here too, even if most of it is very silly. The Velma and Fred pairing is a nice change of pace, I enjoy their dynamic! Although, this does only come as a result of Daphne’s capture. Ultimately, this series is thin on its depiction of Fred and Daphne, they’re mostly one note and will get to shine way more in later versions of the series! I still like them enough, but I can’t help but feel like this comes from their designs and how they act in the future. I think Daphne is the weakest, she’s simply prone to danger, presented as a klutz and usually not all that intelligent, it can be done well, there are places in the franchise where it is, but not here! Fred similarly lacks much character, but small details and focus on him give him the upper hand, such as in Foul Play in Funland where I felt he stood out, and his place as the leader of the group which gives him more to do. Velma, Shaggy and Scooby are far stronger characters, even if they are pretty surface level in how they’re written. 

Another moment I really enjoy is when, for some reason, Shaggy and Scooby decide they want to prank the ghost. For some reason? It’s not too clear why they would jump from being terrified of the monster to pouring water on him, but hey, it’s really funny, mostly because of how abruptly they decide this, finding a body under a sheet, assuming it’s the monster, and then finding a hose. Of course, this backfires, the two of them getting wet, and the body not being the monster’s, it’s great stuff!

And after all this, we learn that the monster is none other than Big Bob Oakley. No way. 

I always find it funny when they kind of ditch the mystery angle - like there’s no suspects here except the fortune teller I guess, but then we see she’s not real. I don’t mind it at all though, the reveal is a lot less impactful in this series purposefully. 

Overall, this one’s fun! Filled with classic horror settings and characters that made me smile. 

12. Scooby-Doo and a Mummy Too

When I saw the list of four episodes I had lined up to watch, I was dreading this one. Truthfully, I hate sandy locations, and Mummy’s are also pretty boring to me! So after the three before that looked so fun, I wasn’t too thrilled to end on this! 

But, I liked it way more than I expected to. 

First of all, the episode isn’t set in a desert, instead in the department of archeology, where after seeing an ancient mummy, Shaggy accidentally pockets a coin, the mummy following them afterwards. 

Honestly, I was on the side of the mummy for most of this. As soon as they see the mummy come to life, they just refuse to give him his coin back, but like, he just wants his coin. To begin with, there’s no crime here, he’s just a mummy returning to life who would like his coin back. If I was robbed, I’d also want my stuff returned. 

The Mummy here is based on the mummy from the Universal Monster movie, The Mummy. I haven’t seen it yet, but I do like how they reference the character, his name being the Mummy of Ankha, a play on the princess name in the movie who the mummy was supposed to protect. Although, as stated in the episode, Ankha was a real person, believed to be the richest ruler in Egypt around 1030 BCE. Also, this name in hieroglyphics roughly translates to life, which makes sense for the character, given he has “returned from the dead”. 

Also I just really liked the mummy here, I don’t know why! He’s just a silly man who would like his money back, which I think is fair enough! In fact, reading back through my notes I made while watching the episode, I was taking the mummy’s side a lot, like sure, he turns people to stone, but so what! I like him. My favourite mummy for sure. 

On the topic of turning people to stone, I think it’s done better here than in What the Hex Going on?, maybe? I’m not too sure, both feel like they use it as a way to escalate things without ever using the concept to its full potential - here Scooby is stolen, then they find a stone statue of him, cry, until they see Scooby is alive a moment after. Although I do love the gag of Scooby crying over being turned to stone, it’s the perfect amount of silly. 

The rest of the episode plays out like your typical Where are You? story, but that isn’t to discredit it. It’s lots of fun, I enjoyed myself far more than I expected to! But sometimes it can make an episode less interesting to talk about. Most of the series is of a consistently good quality, but some episodes are great, such as The Backstage Rage, while some are just very whatever, such as Decoy for a Dognapper. This one sits around the middle, but still manages to be fun to watch!

Episode Ranking:

The Backstage Rage

A Gaggle of Galloping Ghosts

Scooby-Doo and a Mummy Too

Bedlam in the Big Top

Villain Ranking: 

Puppet Master

Mummy of Ankha

Clown Ghost

Dracula

Frankenstein’s Monster

Wolfman 

Previous Review: SDWaY S1 E5-8

Next Review: SDWaY S1 E13-17

[schlock-luster-video]

On March 5, 1943, The Ape Man debuted in the United States.

Here's some new Bela Lugosi art!

[thealmightyemprex]

LGBTQIA+ Mutuals:Whats your favorite scary movie and other questions

So I have noticed that with queer folks such as myself,we tend to gravitate towards horror.Not everyone of course but a lot do,so for LGBTQ+ Mutuals I wanna just talk horror and share these questions

Horror Movie/Media that made you a fan ?

Ive always been drawn to spooky stuff despite being a scaredy cat but the film that solidified me as a horror fan was when I watched Frankenstein as a kid

2.Favorite piece of Horror media in general ?

I think maybe Dracula ,the novel

3.FAvorite Horror Monster type

WEREWOLVES !

4.Why do you enjoy the genre :

I am fascinated by the concept of the monster.The Monster is such an old idea but one we keep using and can use in deffrent ways,it could be a scary thing thats gonna get you,a piece of you you dont want anyone to see ,a tragic figure or a figure of appeal

5.Scariest horror media :

The scariest horror film Ive seen has to be Ghost Story ,from Alice Kriges performance to Dick Smith upsetting effects

6.Favorite Fun Spooky Media :

The musical Little Shop of Horrors

7.Favorite Horror Villain

The Tall Man from Phantasm just freaks me out,cause he is so damn unstoppable

8.Fave Horror Franchise

Evil Dead is such a quality franchise

9.Has a horror film made you cry and if so which one

Yes ,a few but the one that frequently does is The Fly ,you are basically watching a man and a relationship decay

10.COmfort horror film :

Phantom of the Opera 1943 is such a comfort watch for me ,I think its the technicolor

@ariel-seagull-wings @themousefromfantasyland @professorlehnsherr-almashy @the-blue-fairie @piterelizabethdevries anyone else