Why there was no THE INVISIBLE MAN from Hammer?‏
 

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.


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?

I have no real idea, perhaps it just didn't occur to them.

It would've been interesting, no doubt. I could imagine Ralph Bates as Griffin, possibly Peter Cushing but I think it would've worked with a more youthful performance. Surely, plenty of opportunity to spy some young ladies in a state of undress would appear.

You could even get Andrew Keir involved...Quatermass and the Invisible Man!

I think they had it under consideration definitely, because they had bought it alongwith the rest of Universal's stuff. It must have been in line for pre-production in the early 60s, but never went to the floors.

The only reason I can think of is that they never seriously pursued it, because their versions of the Phantom of the Opera ('62) and the Wolf Man (Curse of the Werewolf, '61) bombed at the BO. Many of Fisher's later films didn't pull enough crowds to the theaters after the initial Dracula/Frankenstein adaptations, and other directors (Francis et al) simply did not click.

Remember that they didn't really pursue the Jekyll/Hyde stories either (except for some very novel takes (Sister Hyde, etc.), which I don't think did enough business at the BO either). Not to mention their direct competition with Corman's films, specially the Poe adaptations with Price. So maybe they thought it was better to stick to the tried-and-tested formula of the Dracula/Frankenstein stuff, and tossed all other ideas out of the window.

Maybe their financiers felt that this adaptation would have involved a serious budget, specially for the FX work, and didn't want to commit that kind of money after the early 60s debacle of other adaptations. I doubt Hammer itself could have coughed up that kind of money to make this adaptation, and stay true to it's source material. Ergo, the safe route - Gothic horror, atmospheric films, luscious babes, etc. was the way to go.

It would have been an instant cult favorite though. I would have definitely gone and seen it in the theaters.

I understand they had a script written.........but then it disappeared.











sorry

I think this is likely the reason. I read A Thing of Unspeakable Horror, a history of Hammer, and I don't recall any mention of an Invisible Man film at all. But if there was one reoccurring theme, is was that Carreras and Hinds were very shrewd and liked to stick to what worked (although they did certainly take risks, but I guess just not on this one).

But yeah, that would have been amazing to see.

I don't know but I would have loved to have seen it, especially if the fan poster is any indication of what it would be like. Would easily be a #2 "I wish" film right behind Vampirella starring Caroline Munro.

I suspect that while they were capable of the necessary special effects, Hammer probably just wasn't willing to spend the money. They produced some great films with limited budgets but the bottom line always seemed to be there.

That and for some reason the Invisible Man never seemed to have the same impact as the "monsters" of Universal. Many consider it more sci fi than horror, something they wouldn't do with a similar idea like Frankenstein. Personally it is one of my favorite classic Universal films.

Thanks a lot everyone, for sharing your thoughts & ideas. There are couple of very reasonable & valid points you have made.

But still...darn! It all needed to take one brave big effort by Hammer. A very deserving film for their fans that would surely become a cult favorite.

Now, that can be a good idea for an entirely new film for Hammer, IMO! Based on some 'rumors', then aided with some 'conspiracy' flavored thriller elements involving couple of life-threatening or murder sequences...it can be an interesting fictional thriller revolving around those studio stuffs & some mysterious outsiders who were about to make a great film but for some undisclosed/mysterious reasons the project got abandoned along with the disappearance of one of the finest written scripts in 60's.
The first half can be set on 60s where we need some actors to play all those popular Hammer starts like Fisher, J Sangster, Cushing, Lee and even Ingrid Pitt & Hazel Court! Therefore, along with 'The disappearance of The Invisible Man' mystery, we can also have an inside look in the great 60s studio system works...how things they used to done at that time etc. etc.
The 2nd or last half can be set on modern time...some curious fellas are trying to find that disappeared or lost script of the film and here we can have the guest appearance of Sir Christopher Lee and some other retired/active studio stuffs who has actually worked with the studio back in late 50's to 60s.

Tagline of the film: A secret that Hammer kept all these years!

[Don't mind...when I have very little to do with my time in some lazy hours then this sorta funny ideas sometimes comes into my idle mind:D]

I heard it was because they realized they had no replacement for Una Merkel.




:p