roshiq
10-07-2011, 11:22 PM
Though the topic-question may be old for some of you but it just came to my mind lately when I was facing an HDC Idol challenge about the great directors of the genre, especially after seeing the first two names there...Terence Fisher & James Whale!
Anyway, so what you think or know why Hammer didn't go for The Invisible Man? As we know they marvelously brought back & gave new life to all those popular classic characters in late 50's & 60's that Hollywood's Universal wonderfully capitalized back in 30's & 40's i.e. Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, Sherlock Holmes, Wolfman/werewolf, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hide but why not The Invisible Man??
Griffin is one of the most terrifying characters in Universal's domain of great monsters & bad guy. He's a violent, delusional sociopath with hardly a glimpse of compassion. Where you can say Dracula, Frankenstein's monster and the Mummy were all sympathetic and bit reasonable to a level but not the Invisible Man. He's a pure psychopath who recklessly commits terrorist acts, and no matter how hard you try, you will never see him coming. As brutal as Griffin was in 1933, it would have been something really interesting to see him in a 'Hammerized' darker & more violent tone in the mid 60s. I think it would be not less than fascinating if Fisher had directed Lee as The Invisible One, Cushing as Kemp with a screenplay from Jimmy Sangster? Seems like a perfect product for Hammer.
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g348/sanjidhdc/HammersInvisibleMan.jpg
A fan made poster!
Was there any license issue involved with Universal or any other party that they didn't get or got but that never considered for production? But then again...why?
Was it for the effects or budget? Personally I don't think so. Surely effects that were ahead of their time in the 30's and 40's and may be Hammer was not able do it with that much of perfection but they could still do it pretty fairly that their audience could easily buy at that time, IMO.
So, was ever H.G. Wells' THE INVISIBLE MAN seriously considered by Hammer? If so, then why didn't they made it?
Anyway, so what you think or know why Hammer didn't go for The Invisible Man? As we know they marvelously brought back & gave new life to all those popular classic characters in late 50's & 60's that Hollywood's Universal wonderfully capitalized back in 30's & 40's i.e. Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, Sherlock Holmes, Wolfman/werewolf, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hide but why not The Invisible Man??
Griffin is one of the most terrifying characters in Universal's domain of great monsters & bad guy. He's a violent, delusional sociopath with hardly a glimpse of compassion. Where you can say Dracula, Frankenstein's monster and the Mummy were all sympathetic and bit reasonable to a level but not the Invisible Man. He's a pure psychopath who recklessly commits terrorist acts, and no matter how hard you try, you will never see him coming. As brutal as Griffin was in 1933, it would have been something really interesting to see him in a 'Hammerized' darker & more violent tone in the mid 60s. I think it would be not less than fascinating if Fisher had directed Lee as The Invisible One, Cushing as Kemp with a screenplay from Jimmy Sangster? Seems like a perfect product for Hammer.
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g348/sanjidhdc/HammersInvisibleMan.jpg
A fan made poster!
Was there any license issue involved with Universal or any other party that they didn't get or got but that never considered for production? But then again...why?
Was it for the effects or budget? Personally I don't think so. Surely effects that were ahead of their time in the 30's and 40's and may be Hammer was not able do it with that much of perfection but they could still do it pretty fairly that their audience could easily buy at that time, IMO.
So, was ever H.G. Wells' THE INVISIBLE MAN seriously considered by Hammer? If so, then why didn't they made it?