Another Exclusive Sneak Peek at Wave 2

[PNGwynne]

I like Pantone 579 as a skin tone for the Monster. B&W cinematography notwithstanding and speaking as a make-up artist, I think it's good for the shelf appeal and characterization of the classic monsters to have varying skin tones.

[Mary Canary]

I like him green.

[thunderbolt]

I like Pantone 579 as a skin tone for the Monster. B&W cinematography notwithstanding and speaking as a make-up artist, I think it's good for the shelf appeal and characterization of the classic monsters to have varying skin tones.

Gives them a little more toy appeal to me. I think greyish Drac and Green Frankie will make a nice pair. Throw in a orange-y brown Wolfman and you got a pretty fun looking UM Trinity

[enyawd72]

They showed up green in advertising by mistake.

As an expert on the subject, I can assure you it did not. Just as people asserted for YEARS that the Creature from the Black Lagoon didn't have red lips. The full color Life magazine photos say otherwise. I am fully aware of the makeup and lighting techniques used for black and white film, and what the filmmakers intentions were for the monster to appear in a black and white film, however, Son of Frankenstein was originally going to be shot in color. There exists color test footage of Karloff in full makeup as he was intended to appear in color, and he is GREEN. There is no question about it whatsoever.



It is no different than George Reeves chocolate brown and light grey Superman costume. Although these colors were used to enhance it's appearance in black and white, we all know the intended colors are red and blue. The same applies here.

[enyawd72]

And here's the actual Creature from the Black Lagoon costume in full color...not colorized. The lips are RED. They always were. The posters got it right.

[generic]

And here's the actual Creature from the Black Lagoon costume in full color...not colorized. The lips are RED. They always were. The posters got it right.

That's an awesome photo of The Creature!

[Liu Bei]

As an expert on the subject, I can assure you it did not.

Of course they did. Why was the Monster given green makeup in a black and white film? Logic dictates only two possible reasons for the green makeup. Either it was green because it made the monster show up white on screen, or he was painted green because he was supposed to be green, even though no one in the audience would ever know it because the film was in black and white. Which alternative seems to be the more logical, in your expert opinion?

Just as people asserted for YEARS that the Creature from the Black Lagoon didn't have red lips. The full color Life magazine photos say otherwise.

A complete non-sequitur.

I am fully aware of the makeup and lighting techniques used for black and white film, and what the filmmakers intentions were for the monster to appear in a black and white film

Why did the makeup artists paint the Monster green for a black and white film, in your expert opinion?

however, Son of Frankenstein was originally going to be shot in color. There exists color test footage of Karloff in full makeup as he was intended to appear in color, and he is GREEN. There is no question about it whatsoever.

You're proving my point. Son was nearly a decade after the original. As I said previously, both Dracula and The Monster were green in early marketing materials. It was corrected for Dracula. For the Monster, it simply passed into popular culture.

It is no different than George Reeves chocolate brown and light grey Superman costume. Although these colors were used to enhance it's appearance in black and white, we all know the intended colors are red and blue. The same applies here.

It applies to my argument, not yours. It would only correlate to your argument if we are to believe chocolate brown and light grey are the colors the filmmakers always intended Superman to have in the TV series.

[enyawd72]

^I've provided ample evidence to prove my point already, and there is plenty more documented anecdotal evidence out there. Look it up for yourself. I really don't want to keep debating this.

Jack Pierce made the monster's makeup green to make him look inhuman, NOT to make him look white. If that were the case, guess what he would have used? White. It was the lighting director who used blue gel lighting to get the appearance James Whale wanted on film.

All the advertising reflected the monster's actual appearance, and had nothing to do with Frankenstein's pop culture status, which wasn't even a thing in the 1930's. That didn't happen until the late 1950's thru 1960's with Shock Theatre, Famous Monsters of Filmland, and Aurora models.

[megowgsh]

THE MUNSTERS was shot in black and white and they were all costumed in full color, right?

[Liu Bei]

^I've provided ample evidence to prove my point already, and there is plenty more documented anecdotal evidence out there. Look it up for yourself. I really don't want to keep debating this.

You are welcome to stop any time you wish. This is a conversation, not a contest. As for your evidence, there is very little, and none of it disproves what I stated already. Frankenstein was shown as green on the advertising material because Boris Karloff's makeup was green.

The logical question I posed earlier remains -- was Karloff in green makeup because it showed up ash white/grey on screen, or was it because the Monster was supposed to be green (even though audiences would never know this because the film was black and white)?

Frankenstein.jpg

The answer is fairly simple to anyone looking to have an honest discussion instead of defending wounded pride.

As has been covered by you and by I already, colors show up differently in black and white than they do in color. It's why Matt Dillon wore a pink shirt, why George Reeve's Superman wore a brown and grey uniform, and why Frankenstein (and Dracula) were green.

Superman brown.jpg

green dracula 1.jpg

green dracula 2.jpg

green dracula 3.jpg

You acknowledge the reality of this, but deny the logical conclusion.

Jack Pierce made the monster's makeup green to make him look inhuman, NOT to make him look white. If that were the case, guess what he would have used? White.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. I'm not sure what you are an expert in, but it isn't early film makeup. Because of the nature of the film being used at that time, it wasn't simply a case of using white makeup to make actors look more white. The film used at that time was sensitive to certain colors of the spectrum, and insensitive to others. I won't go into the minutia of the color spectrum unless needed, but your argument is getting weaker as you progress, not stronger.

It was the lighting director who used blue gel lighting to get the appearance James Whale wanted on film.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but my best guess is that you are talking about the greasepaint liner used along the eyes to make it darker. This was done to give contrast (and ironically one of the reasons white makeup wouldn't/couldn't have been used to achieve the ash white/grey look Pierce wanted, because the demarcation level would have been zero or near zero.)

All the advertising reflected the monster's actual appearance

Did it? Which ads are you referring to? (See my next post for ads with non-green Frankenstein.)

I will ask the question again, and hopefully you will answer it (but my guess is you won't). Does Frankenstein appear white or green in the film? (He is white.) There were no makeup applications at the time that could clue the audience in to something being green, but they could have given him a yellow tinge (as he was actually described in the book), so why did he come off so white? Green would have produced the exact shade of ash white/grey tone the Monster had in the film, which is why they used a similar makeup scheme for Dracula, whom we can all agree was to be pale, deathly white. (I hope we can agree, at least, but have little faith at this point).

Why would the Monster be made up green if the film could only be seen in black and white? Seriously. Why? The answer is obvious to anyone looking to have an actual conversation and not protect wounded pride over coming up short in a discussion on the internet.

[favoritemonsters]

Seems everyone flips when they hear that someone wants to colorize the old UM movies...then why colorize the action figure ?

[Liu Bei]

All the advertising reflected the monster's actual appearance, and had nothing to do with Frankenstein's pop culture status, which wasn't even a thing in the 1930's. That didn't happen until the late 1950's thru 1960's with Shock Theatre, Famous Monsters of Filmland, and Aurora models.

white frankenstein 1.jpg

white frankenstein 3.jpg

white frankenstein 4.jpg

white frankenstein 2.jpg

[Liu Bei]

THE MUNSTERS was shot in black and white and they were all costumed in full color, right?

It depends on what point in the Munsters you are referring to. Anyway, Herman Munster had a bluish tinge to him, as did most of the Munsters. It is, ironically, the green Frankenstein makeup so embedded in popular culture that informs the ideas of what Frankenstein's Monster is supposed to look like, even when it comes to parodies.

the munsters 1.jpg

the munsters 2.jpg

I find it sadly amusing that some people here are getting so defensive about this issue. The Monster, for all intents and purposes, is forevermore green. I thought it was an amusing anecdote that he was actually supposed to be ash white / grey (as he obviously appears in the film, as intended), and not green. Oh well. I'll keep it to myself next time.

[PNGwynne]

I'd love to weigh in on this, but I just don't have the stamina. Have at it, gents.

[Falstaff13]

Not looking to stoke any fires at all, but it is a fact that you can create a "whiter white" using certain colors when filming in black & white. (Even in modern photography and using camcorders and digital cameras/phones, there are some colors that actually produce the look of other colors in B&W, especially if you juxtapose certain shades.) For the black & white episodes of Doctor Who, the Tardis console was a light green, because it gave the bright white glow they wanted in B&W for the interior. When they moved to color in the Pertwee era, they built a new (white) console. I've always read that the Monster was made using green makeup to make him look deathly pale, and the shade of green used for that makeup, under B&W lighting, created an pale look that evoked the undead as they wanted him to appear. I have read that the presumption of green skin for the monster then came from color photos of the makeup (since none of the films were made in color), but I admit that is an anecdotal reasoning. I teach high school, and I've had students for years argue that it's green simply because he's a resurrected corpse. I get the logic there, but I have to admit, having encountered the story about the makeup needs first, I have always taken it as "the fact."

I do think the pop cultural view of the Monster is green. That applies to the Universal/Jack Pierce version and the various generic ones that seek to cash in. I cannot think of a major film version (not the Hammer, not the Branagh, not in "True Story") that goes the green route, but the kind of "theme park" version (isn't the one in Monster Squad green, for instance?) is seemingly now green, and that color, along with the flat head and bolts, have become the signifier.