Lugosi couldn't sit behind a fake sheet of ice
for his first shot in the film? He needed a stunt double for that?
Not exactly. Lugosi suffered exhaustion at a point in filming, and he was absent from the set for a few days. Presumably, that was a scene filmed during his absence.
To be fair to the guy, Lugosi was sixty years old when he played that role. To put that in context, when these actors played the role they were:
Boris Karloff: 44 at his youngest, 51 at his oldest
Lon Chaney Jr: 36
Glenn Strange: 45
So Lugosi was a little long in the tooth to handle the strain of the part, plus he was entering the worst period of the sciatic nerve pain in his leg that would increase his morphine dependence.
So he just couldn't handle it. It didn't really matter to the studio, they just wanted his name on the poster.
It's always bothered me that the monster's introductory shot is an actor who's clearly not Lugosi. There's no hiding that nose.
[deleted]
As I mentioned, Lugosi was a selling point. It was totally a marketing decision to even involve him in the project. He made a series of films for Universal at this point in his career that served only this same purpose.
This is the same logic behind Chaney Jr. playing The Mummy in the 'Kharis' films. His role is completely thankless and any competent stuntman could have pulled it off, but the Chaney name meant box office. It's a formula used since the dawn of moviemaking.
[deleted]
POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOR 'GHOST OF FRANKENSTIEN' AND 'FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN'
I certainly don't think it's some foregone conclusion that the results of this film were "not very good". And I don't think hiring another actor to play Frankenstein's Monster would've made much of a difference (if any). What would have changed?Instead of a few quick shots with a stunt double, it would've been some other actor without stunt doubles for a few shots? Big deal. The Monster may have had a few spoken lines of dialogue? I don't know if that would've helped anything. For us Universal horror fans, it's at least kind of fun to see Lugosi in the role. I think it's solid "B-level" (for lack of a better term) entertainment. Especially for these beloved characters coming together on the screen for the first time in this first "monster mash" film ever made, it makes it all the more worthwhile and fun.
If Frankenstein's Monster had any lines, I don't think there could have been very many to cut in the first place. It's not like they cut dialogue and suddenly the film now makes no sense, or Lugosi's lips move without sound like some dubbed Japanese movie - not the case at all. If it wasn't such a popular "behind-the-scenes" trivia, you wouldn't know. We also all saw 'Ghost of Frankenstein' and we all know he was blind at the end......the fact that Lugosi (reportedly) plays him blind is NOT a continuity error. The dialogue makes no mention one way or the other - although the way Lugosi plays the character and the inferences to Frankenstein's weakened state, I would say it's likely that he can't see well. I fail to see where the inconsistency is?
In any event, it's quite obvious that this is more of a Larry Talbot/Wolfman movie than it is a Frankenstein movie. Frankenstein has little screen time which make these issues less critical.
In the end, solid, fun entertainment.
[deleted]
You are wrong on so many levels. Obviously Frankenstein's monster had a larger role in the movie and he had quite a lot of dialogue. That is quite known, so how dare you sit up here and try to act like hardly anything went wrong with this movie during the editing process. We lost character development and some continuity plot points you ding bat. Lugosi was wasted in this movie so they should have either kept all his scenes in or recast the role and film up entirely new monster scenes if the dialogue was that much of a bother.No need to get offended. I don't deny that nothing went wrong in the editing process. Obviously this is well-known among fans of the film.
You bring up the point that this is more of a Wolfman movie than a Frankenstein movie. Well, you think it started out that way? Well it didn't so it does make the monster's role an issue considering his role was chipped down to practically a cameo this could have just been a flat-out Wolfman movie. No need to even throw in a Frankenstein relative and have this be a crossover movie that wouldn't even turn out to be that spectacular.There's another thread on here where someone posted a script from the film with the Monster's dialogue......if the script is accurate, the Monster never had a ton of dialogue or characterization excised to begin with.
The film is 74 minutes - well within the normal running time of Universal monster films. In my opinion, I didn't really pick-up on any inconsistencies and the film is coherent. If the Monster originally had a lot of dialogue, then they did a masterful job in the post-production/editing process.
I also don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that the film would've been any better with the dialogue. If test audiences and those at Universal thought it was silly and hilarious.....maybe it was? Again, if the script posted on here was accurate - nothing in it can't already be inferred from the final film anyway. My opinion of course. share
[deleted]
Well it was certainly compared to the NOTHING he did end up having. He held out quite a few conversations so that wasn't worth cutting out.Just because the Monster speaks doesn't necessarily mean he's given anymore characterization. His few simple lines of dialogue almost explain the story on an elementary level.
Well other people notice it and again, we lost a lot of character development from the monster which is greatly noticeable. One would be wondering why he isn't in the movie as much as he should have been when we have the Wolfman having a great amount of screen time. 74 minutes? That is way too short and Universal should have kept the movie running longer. It kills me that the earlier movies were so short. They did not need to keep that trend going and with this movie being a crossover flick, we were going to need a chunk of time to fully flesh out the Wolfman and the monster and 74 minutes surely was not going to do a justice.What characterization do you think is lost? Even if they kept the Monster's dialogue, I have a tough time believing they would've made the movie much longer than 74 minutes just based on what the norm was for these movies. The Monster only has like 4 or 5 speaking scenes with just a few lines of dialogue each (again, assuming the supposed script is accurate). I don't think that would add much to the running time.
The test audiences were stupid and often times you can't reply on them to make a change to a movie. Take Halloween 6 for example. We had some test audience that hated the original product and the cut version that ended up being released with entirely new footage turned out to be a bust and people prefer the original version which was better flowing and had a complete story. Universal should have said screw the audience and released the movie as it was. I don't find anything funny and silly about the monster talking since we seen him talk before so it had to have something to do with mostly Lugosi's voice performance. I doubt it was all that funny to listen to and if his voice was off, why couldn't they just have him dub his lines over with a more less-funny voice or have some one else dub over them completely if Lugosi couldn't fix it? That's better than just saying "Well we're just going to cut these scenes out since people found the voice silly!" like how pathetic when alternative things could have been done here.It's too bad these scenes are presumably lost forever so we can't see it both ways - I'm sure Lugosi was probably angry about it. But the powers that be thought it was the best decision. It would've been interesting to see some interviews from those involved - including the director and writers. If you hate the movie as is now, do you think the few lines of dialogue by the Monster would completely change the film? I don't. share
[deleted]
According to the book "It's Alive" the monster says to Talbot, "I missed you", which had test audiences rolling on the floor. You can hear a little snippet of the monster talking when they find the hidden compartment.
[deleted]
The Frankenstein monster, with Lugosi's voice, says to Talbot, the Wolf Man, "I missed you". You don't find that comical?
[deleted]
OK. I give up.
I think it's easy to see how that line would be comedic - given the Monster's reputation, to say "I miss you" in a Hungarian accent? Come on.
Seeing as how this was 1943 and nobody could've foreseen the world of blu rays and bonus materials - or that anyone would even care 70 years later - they probably didn't care about the excised film. They wouldn't have planned on ever using it.
I understand why some fans are upset about it - Bela Lugosi is one of the greats. Up there with Boris Karloff. Lugosi's role as The Monster in this film is reduced to a near cameo and fans would have like to have seen Lugosi's role expanded as originally written.
I'm just not 100% sure it would have made the film better; but it's too bad the film is lost.
[deleted]
It would have made the film better as it would have been complete and given the monster more of a role than he ended up with. Come on, get your head on straight.It would've been nice to see; that's about the only thing we're going to agree on.
Fact is, neither of us have ever seen what was removed, so who the hell knows. Fact is they made the movie they made and that's the only thing we can judge. share
[deleted]
Studios threw away footage all the time. Nobody has ever seen Welles' Ambersons and never will because it's gone. In 1968, at the height of their popularity Lennon and McCartney appeared on the Tonight Show once. In order to save money on tape, NBC erased it and reused the tape. It's gone forever. Even restored films like Lost Horizon have large audio only sections because the video is gone. That's how they did it.
[deleted]