Son of Dracula

[palitoy]

Kharis's image adorned hundreds of pieces of merch in the 60s and 70s.

Four movies and a remake by Hammer, it's not open and shut as to who owned the Mummy image at all IMO, it's totally up for debate and I think based a lot on personal preference.

[hedrap]

I have never seen a bandaged Karloff product labeled "Im Ho Tep", just as I can't recall a Universal license for a fez-wearing alchemist labeled "The Mummy". Even Sideshow and Hasbro never produced an Im Ho Tep figure. Universal, from the first theatrical release, emphasized bandaged-Karloff as "The Mummy" and then went with Kharis for decades. As MIB laid out, we only went back to Karloff when (post Star Wars) licensing had major value and the estates got involved.

So while we diehards may know Karloff was not Kharis, pop culture made Kharis synonymous with the vengeful bandaged Mummy. And I don't mean the name "Kharis" as a product label. Universal conflated the image of any bandaged Mummy to mean Kharis' storyline, discarding any idea of Im Ho Tep underneath. And all the knock-offs in pop culture have followed the Kharis template

[enyawd72]

FYI Sideshow actually made three different fez-wearing Im-Ho-Teps. One 12" figure, one Little Big Head and their life-sized bust.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean...whether he's bandaged or not, Im-Ho-Tep is still Im-Ho-Tep, and there have been three times as many figures made of him as Kharis.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Lugosi would have been too hammy for the Mummy, I think. His Ardeth Bay would have read too silly. Subtlety wasn't Lugosi's strong point. He excelled in broad roles like Dracula and Ygor. Just like Chaney, Jr. excelled in "everyman" roles like Larry Talbot.

I was pleasantly surprised by Son of Dracula. It's really an early Film Noir entry disguised as a horror movie. Dracula gets owned by the Femme Fatale. I think in that way, Chaney works, because he was forever playing somebody's dupe, or some poor soul who fell victims to circumstances out of his control, from Lenny to Larry Talbot. He couldn't put across the suave continental, though.

I was never big on Carradine as Dracula. I appreciated he wanted to mimic the look of Stoker's character as best he could, but he didn't have that mesmerizing quality Lugosi had. For Carradine, it was a put-on. For Lugosi it was his natural...weirdness.

Chris

[palitoy]

OK let's look at this way, the highest point of Monster merchandise to the general public is the 1960s, with the 70s seeing a nice revival. Aurora sold millions of Kharis models over 30 years, I'd be willing to bet the volume of single AHI Kharis figures produced likely topples all Im Ho Tep items produced in the last 20 years.

Not to mention T-Shirts, School bags, wallets, trading cards, posters, board games, Jigglers, Bend Ems, Puzzles, Flicker Rings, Don Post masks. I seriously challenge the statement that Im Ho Tep is the most merchandised of the two characters.

After the deal with the Karloff estate, IMT definitely became the Style guide Mummy and therefor Kharis got the back seat in the collector era.

I'm not saying Kharis is better, what I'm trying to punch holes in is the idea that there is a "Clear Winner" in this case on either side. It's not as easy an argument like it is when you ask whose films are better....

[PNGwynne]

The modern Mummy films did not follow the Kharis template, they elaborated upon Imhotep.

For the record--I like Hammer's Kharis, and Lee as well as Cushing and especially George Pastell bring much to the film. More than the Universal casts IMO.

But you're wrong in your generalization that Imhotep unwrapped hasn't been merchandized--he has, by Sideshow & others. I also disagree with your idea that the '30s audience didn't accept Karloff as a resurrected mummy. Of course they did, they had no other frame of reference. Other than Poe and Carter's Tut discovery, Universal created the image of mummy resurrection and menace as they did with most of their monsters.

I don't hate the Kharis formula, I just think they are lazy, simple, repetitive films--coughing up Haitian voodoo tropes with an Egyptian patina. I think--film-wise--it's essential to differentiate the '30s films under one management from the slicker formula '40s film made under another. Doubtless Universal felt Kharis was more exploitable for sequels as a generic monster, a lesser "Frankenstein"--that doesn't mean Imhotep was inferior, as a character or as a film. Look at what Uni did to the Monster in the name of sequels.

My intent here was really to discuss film and casting, not debate merchandising by backwards reasoning. If I enjoy a Kharis film, it's Hammer, Tyler, and a few scenes of Olsen's Ananka in the last programmer. Just my opinion. But of course there's room for many mummies--let's see an Aztec one.

[PNGwynne]

Palitoy makes a good point--it's Aurora's success that cemented the populist Mummy.

Too, there's also an element of quantitative influence in rewatching the films as a kid. If you see a few Kharis films on Creature Feature as a generic menace, and then a more nuanced Imhotep who is mostly unwrapped, who would you choose? I mean, one-handed lurching is easier than incantations on the play-ground lol. I've really come to appreciate Karloff's Mummy more as an adult.

[hedrap]

Reboots. I think that's what's missing from the discussion.

Mummy's Hand was made eight years later as a reboot sans Karloff. To wait that long for a sequel and then reset the table, tells me that nostalgic history has made Karloff's Mummy more popular than it was at the time. Universal wasn't one to let a hit property lay about and ferment if it was so beloved.

Sommers Indiana Jones knockoff came about after fifteen years of development. Craven and Barker were involved for most of that time, but they were making horror films and like Carpenter's Creature, Uni had no interest in that. What Sommers made is the polar opposite of the Kharis movies.

But it was Hammer who made the de facto Mummy film and they could have incorporated any Im Ho Tep elements they wanted. But they didn't, so IMO, that shows Kharis was the template and stayed that way until the licensing upgrade and Uni Craven 80's reboot development.

When I look at Kharis and Ardeth Bey, I see Victor and The Monster as the framework. I've wondered if that was the plan for Mummy's Hand, made one year after Son Of Frank, but Karloff shot it down. So why sign Lugosi for a Bey when Uni could go fast and cheap, which worked out.

[MIB41]

While Karloff will always get my utmost respect for his role as Imhotep, when I think of an iconic mummy image, it will always be this...



And that's not necessarily reflective on how I feel about the quality of those films. But I sure like the fact Kharis got screen time, unlike Karloff's Mummy that lasted about ten seconds. I liked the Mummy to have his lumbering presence to wreck havoc and be the monster I could watch and then mimic with my AHI figures. As a kid I warmed to Chaney's monster and appreciated Karloff's interpretation much later when the story values took on more weight. But Chaney's Mummy will always hold a special place with my inner child. And for me, that is where the magic happens.