[_____V_____]

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.