| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Enda80
Preeminent Apostolic Prelate of the Discipleship of Jabootu
108 Posts |
 Posted - 04/14/2010 : 4:34:20 PM
|
Why did so many Victoria/Edwardian era monsters from the lab? Dracula the most prominent exception? Lead [-]
It occurred to me that of well-known monsters of the Victorian/Edwardian era, while Dracula and Ayesha* explicitly gained their respective power from sorcery, other monsters did not. In fact, despite that gothic feel of these monsters, most of them came as a result of laboratory work or evolution.
Frankenstein's Monster: assembled in a lab
Invisible Man: result of lab work
Mr. Hyde: result of lab work
Doyle's The Lost World)
(The Phantom of the Opera had no paranormal abilities, so he fits into neither category.)
Looking at some later prominent horror characters from almost one hundred years later:
Freddy Krueger: explicitly a magical entity
Pinhead: explicitly a magicial entity
Jason Voorhees: explicitly a magical entity from parts 6-11
Chucky: explicitly a magical entity
Michael Myers, in the theatrical version of Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers, has an origin that seems laboratory based. Other than that, what prominent series horror characters from the 1970's to the 1980's came from the laboratory?
http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/23760/master/1/?page=1
http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/reply/482727/t/What-if-Universal-continued-the.html#reply-482727
*She/Ayesha does serve as another counterexample of a Victoria Era monsters whose power came from magic. Not too many people dress up as Ayesha for festivities, but apparently the first book remains a phenomenal best-seller, and reading Kim Newman's introduction to The Vampire Archives, She did outsell Dracula for the first few years. So I suppose Ayesha has some status as a classic monster (she did say she would attempt global domination in the first two books). So, I will allow Ayesha as one of the "classic monsters". |
Edited by - Enda80 on 04/15/2010 12:38:00 AM
|
|
|
The Bog Man
Minister of the Sacraments of Jabootu
45 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2010 : 9:04:45 PM
|
I'm reading the book American Nerd and author puts the first wave of "lab" horrors on the Byronic rejection of the coldly intellectual for the romantic. Ie; Frankenstein is an uber-nerd who allows his natural impulses for procreation to become corrupted.
I kind of agree with him, because we tended to see "horrors" pop up to embody shock at destructive uses of science. (Post WWI pulp villains using "gasses", 50's atomic bugs/mutants, etc.)
Maybe we've shifted the other way today. We've become so cozy with technology that our horrors are all chaotic and preternatural; usurpers of a rational materialist world.
As for modern lab-created critters, that's hard. There have been zombie films based around scientific noodling, but I don't think that counts. ("Zombie" is an archetype, not a character, and origins vary wildly.)
There's the monster from Species, but I don't think anyone considers her in the same league as the ones you mentioned. Aside from remakes (The Fly) and 'not really monster' monsters (Jurassic Park) I'm drawing a blank.
www.hauntedbog.com
That is not dead which can eternal lie, I'm just not a morning person. |
 |
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 2:17:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Bog Man
Maybe we've shifted the other way today. We've become so cozy with technology that our horrors are all chaotic and preternatural; usurpers of a rational materialist world.
That's a very interesting thought. Indeed, that would be the path some present day horror movies have taken, such as Km. 666. But keep in mind that the fight between chaos and rationalism has always been the cornerstone of supernatural horror. It's the definitions of "chaos" and "rationalism" what change in every period.
Take Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. For Robert Louis Stevenson there is nothing scarier and more mysterious (=chaotic) than the inside evils we keep subdued. Oh, imagine the possibilities...
But these days people see going to the shrink as a rather normal thing, and we talk of our impulses and the ways we control them over cups of coffee. As you pointed out, the "chaos" of yesterday can become the new rationalism. |
Edited by - Neville on 04/16/2010 2:24:35 PM |
|
|
|
Greenhornet
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1791 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 6:24:04 PM
|
Jason Voorhees: explicitly a magical entity from parts 6-11
That's a problem, too. Jason was a kid at the end of #1, then an adult in #2. Also, the whole continuity was changed in #2 where the targets (I can't call them "characters") talk about the JASON legend instead of acknowedging that his mother did the killings.
What's up with that?
"The Queen is testing poisons." CLEOPATRA, 1935 |
|
|
|
Greenhornet
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1791 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 6:27:35 PM
|
Back to the "creature of mad science" topic.
The "science monster" movie seems to have shifted over to the "ultimate weapon" or the "ultimate solder" origin, but I think these are more anti-military themes than "science out of control".
"The Queen is testing poisons." CLEOPATRA, 1935 |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 7:44:28 PM
|
Are we talking novels or films now? Film-wise, pre-WW2, lab-created horrors obviously had a presence on the big screen (Franky-boy, Invisible Man, J&H) but Hollywood also unleashed its share of supernatural horror (Dracula, ghosts, werewolves, the Mummy). With the end of WW2 and the dawning of the nuclear age, Hollywood lost interest in supernatural horror completely. It was up to Great Britain's film industry to revive the supernatural trend.
Can't speak about the trend today because I hardly ever go to the movies anymore. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked