FRANKENSTEIN (1931) in Universal Horrors Forum

Forum Jump

FRANKENSTEIN (1931)

Author	Comment
Crow T Robot		#221	[-]
Jun 30 12 12:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	So...we all agree. It may or may not be Boris Karloff on the floor, and he may or may not be in total makeup. And it only took 80 years for this to be discovered.
	Remove this ad
Wich2		#222	[-]
Jun 30 12 1:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Maybe, Crow - maybe not! >Continuity Gaffes Uncovered in James Whale Movies: Film At 11.< And at 12. And at 1. And at 2. And at 3. And...
Bobtheman	A Combo from Bobzilla	#223	[-]
Jun 30 12 1:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks, Bob.
Bobtheman		#224	[-]
Jun 30 12 3:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	These are some high quality screen captures from SQUIRE HAMILTON on the floor monster, for whatever use we may want to make of them. still photo 310-1-31 had to be taken after the scene was filmed because the position of the Monster on the film and photo are different. The Monster's position on the floor would be at the start of the filmed scene. Here's a thought: Suppose Karloff did the fall, landed face upwards, we can see he landed on a concrete floor and with that heavy costume and boots may have injured his back and/or twisted his anke, unable to do the carry-up scene, so a stand in was rushed to do that scene and to expedite the matter and save time, this stand in was not fully made up and filmed and photographed face downwards. Thank you, Squire, for those screen grabs.
Joe Karlosi		#225	[-]
Jun 30 12 4:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That sounds fine to me, Bob, if it means we can move on. So what do you think, everyone out there? Bob's theory sounds spot on, does it not? "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
Wich2		#226	[-]
Jun 30 12 7:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	As one of about ten different possible scenarios, none of which can probably be proven at this point, sure.
The Batman of Gotham		#227	[-]
Jun 30 12 8:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: As one of about ten different possible scenarios, none of which can probably be proven at this point, sure. Precisely. - GJS
Joe Karlosi		#228	[-]
Jul 1 12 6:04 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Precisely, yes. But I think you fellas may have missed my point. (Just say you agree with Bob's scenario and perhaps we can finally move onto another subject ). "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
HalLane		#229	[-]
Jul 1 12 7:54 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bobtheman wrote: A Combo from Bobzilla Thanks, Bob. Thaz ma boy! I'm sold. (In the language of the Empire), ta, Bobs!
Bobtheman		#230	[-]
Jul 1 12 9:55 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hal, I'm with you all the way on Karloff as the guy carried into the dungeon and placed on the floor. But I don't think that means we can infer or imply that it's necessarily Karloff as the guy picked off the floor in the earlier shot. Films are often shot of sequence. This is 310-1-55. This is 310-1-31 , the famous photograph. We know from previous analysis that this photo was taken after the scene was shot, look at the condtion of Clive's shirt after this scene was shot. Compare his shirt to 310-1-55, the shirt looks a lot dirtier and the cut on his face looks different to me. Van Sloan's jacket has a lot of dusty particles on it in 310-1-31 and not so to me in 310-1-55 from what we see of it there. . Hal, I also think the guy placed on the floor is Karloff in makeup, and the guy on the floor in 310-1-31 is not in makeup. Meantime, here's some comparisons from BZ about the Monster placed on the floor in the dungeon to the one lying on the floor outside the dungeon For whatever use anyone wants to make of it, Thanks Bob. I understand some of us want to wrap this up, and I think this about does it.
	Remove this ad
Bobtheman	Final Random Thought ( hopefully)	#231	[-]
Jul 2 12 10:34 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"And in that moment, I knew the answer to the riddle of the infinite." Sir Hal Lane, upon reflection overnight, I believe this one image you posted back in 2006 speaks volumes and solves the whole issue. Hal, I agree with your recent post this is Karloff here. Now, what is most significant is this... Karloff is definitely wearing the Monster make up on his face. Notice how his face appears and contrast that to Boles, Clive, and Van Sloan. Furthur, the other recent comparisons of this image of yours to the Karloff monster shows the same thing- they look the same and your Karloff image has him in the monster makeup, just like the others. And he is being carried face down in this scene. So, to me, it makes no sense whatsoever that Karloff would have the monster makeup on his face while being carried face downward in this scene, and have no make up on his face when lifted and carried face downward in the hallway scene. Furthur, the attempted explanation that they planned to lift him and carry him face down in the hallway (with no make up on) makes no sense to me , it would completely conflict with the way he fell, face up. David Colton summed it up eloquently in 2006 when he said the floor Monster in 310-1-31 "doesn't look like Karloff." I agree with him- it doens't look like him because it's not. And, Sir Hal, your own observations in 2006 tell us the same thing. Joe Karlosi wrote: Precisely, yes. But I think you fellas may have missed my point. (Just say you agree with Bob's scenario and perhaps we can finally move onto another subject ). I agree with Joe here and this is the time to move on to another subject.
Ted Newsom		#232	[-]
Jul 2 12 10:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The stuntman, an Aussie named Perkins, Was so very fond of small gherkins, While they shot the scene He ate seventeen, Which tickled his internal workins'.
Tragg		#233	[-]
Jul 3 12 5:27 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yes, but from the look of the publicity still (rather than the shot in the film), his stomach isn't quite as raised up. So I think we can all conclude that during the camera test/rehearsal Perkins (though I suspect it was Parker) only ate fifteen gerkins. The other two gerkins had to have been consumed just before the actual take - thus the added stomach elevation. And now that I've proved this to everyone's satisfaction I think we can move on.
Wich2		#234	[-]
Jul 3 12 9:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Geez, men! Maybe they didn't have gherkins during the Uncle Carl era, but good German kosher half-sours. There must be a lunchroom still where we could tell?
todmichel		#235	[-]
Jul 3 12 4:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Quote: "Just say you agree with Bob's scenario and perhaps we can finally move onto another subject." Mercy! mercy! I agree! I agree with everything! Karloff wasn't even in the entire movie at all! may I move now?
DEG	is the full uncensored version 70 or 72 minutes?	#236	[-]
Aug 15 12 10:35 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I know this territory has been somewhat covered... but I'm trying to nail this down: is the most complete version of the film 70 or 72 minutes? When I watched it back in 2002 or 2003, I watched a restored version with the girl drowning that clocked at 72 minutes (I wrote 72 minutes in my notebook). But just yesterday I thought I'd watch the 2004 Universal Legacy DVD version w/Rudy Behlmer's commentary, and it also included the girl drowning... but it clocked at 70 minutes. Anyone know if something else was cut from this 2004 Legacy version? Or maybe they just sped up the titles or something? (p.s. I must admit I forgot which version I watched in 2002 or 2003; it might have been VHS.) thanks everyone, David www.clawsandsaucers.com
Crow T Robot		#237	[-]
Aug 16 12 11:20 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I was thinking. Now that Frankenstein is coming out on BluRay in Hi-Def we can finally get high quality still caps and we can really sit down and still frame a scene we know is Karloff and count the hairs on his arm and then still frame a scene where we question if it is Karloff and count those arm hairs. We will FINALLY be able to know the truth!
Wich2		#238	[-]
Aug 16 12 6:35 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	What about the PORE-WHORLS!!!
tonyrivers		#239	[-]
Oct 1 12 2:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Two fashion shots of Mae Clarke taken in 1931 ... note at end of the write-ups "...Worn in FRANKENSTEIN" and "See this in FRANKENSTEIN" (from Frankensteinia, the Frankenstein Blog)
countplastica		#240	[-]
Oct 1 12 5:49 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bob, sorry if it's been noted already but in the face-down shots, cobwebs are visible, hanging somewhat profusely, over the doorway and on the wall outside the cell, but (to my eye) they are absent in this scene: http://www.youtube.com/wa...player_detailpage#t=378s Last Edited By: countplastica Oct 1 12 5:52 PM. Edited 2 times.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

FRANKENSTEIN (1931)