Was the Wolfman not as popular as Dracula or Frankenstein? They each had sequels: Bride of...Sons of...etc.
But Wolfman only has what, two? And only in crossover films. Was it just that Universal Horror was dying out by then?
The Wolf man was in a total of 5 films.
It wasn't dying out, but it had definitely moved on to the Monster crossover era.
Straightedge means I'm better than you.
[deleted]
Comparatively, it got started later than Dracula and Frankenstein, by quite a few years and , yes started getting overshadowed by the sci-fi flicks of the 50s.
Plus I'm sure that make up and the dissolve work wasn't cheap. Frankenstein was the only one who had a bunch of direct sequels. There was son of Dracula which was way later. Dracula daughter w no Dracula in it. Then the team up movies.
Yup, to me the Universal Monsters are the first big shared movie universe. The crossovers started with "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman", followed by "House of Frankenstein" and "House of Dracula" both of which featured all 3 monsters Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolfman. Then, of course, there was "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" which had all 3 monsters and even a cameo by the Invisible Man.
Good times.
With great power comes great responsibility.
To be honest, I wasn't even aware there were sequels. Having said that, other than Bride of Frankenstein, were any of the sequels to the aforementioned films, any good?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
As the Universal sequels go, "Bride of Frankenstein", "Son of Frankenstein", "The Invisible Man Returns", and "Son of Dracula" are all enjoyable to me. I also like the two "House" films, maybe more than some folks do. Really I'm fond of just about all of the vintage Universal Horrors output, though the Captive Wild Woman flicks are pretty mediocre.