Rakshasa wrote:
Rick wrote:Scott Essman's article on the Wolf Man makeup is also very good and suffers only in comparison to the two pieces it has to follow.  It's a nice history of Universal's werewolf makeups and of Jack Pierce's work.  It is a bit of a cheat, however, to advertise the piece on the cover as "The Evolution of Pierce's Wolf Man Makeup."  It's not really that.  Essman covers the proposed WEREWOLF OF LONDON makeup and the final, utilized makeup, and how the original idea more or less was used for Larry Talbot.  But that's just history, not really a look at how the makeup "evolved."  Essman really has only one paragraph in the piece that deals with (or even mentions) the evolution of the look.

Actually, that might make for a fun article too.  Maybe a little too picayune, but I'd like to read how "the ears were hairier in ...."  "the chin whiskers were longer in..." "the fur was darker in..."  something like that.  A genuine look at the "evolution" of the makeup as it was adjusted from film to film  But that's not really what this article was.
I have to agree with you on that, Rickeroo. In fact, the exact same thoughts went through my head when I was reading the article, but I figured one could say that the *photos* were showing the evolution of the Wolf Man make-up, so I just let it go. I do agree with you, however, that the article itself didn't really deliver what I was expecting based upon it's title.

Still, I enjoyed the article (and the photos) regardless, so no harm done from my perspective. image

  

Thanks for the feedback everyone, it's GREATLY appreciated! As far as Scott's article goes, blame the title on me. Scott's piece was untitled so I gave it one. Maybe "Jack Pierce's Wolf Man Makeups" would have better suited the piece. So again that one is on me. I'm glad you at least enjoyed the photos.

Jim Clatterbaugh
Editor/Publisher MFTV
www.monstersfromthevault.com