Mr. Hyde and his esteemed college Dr, Jekyll are one (two? is Jekyll and Hyde a plural or a singular?) of the most iconic characters in horror. While they might not by Dracula, Frankenstein, or the Wolfman levels of famous, they at least factor in with the Phantom of the Opera and Quasimodo as horror iconic.
Yet stop and picture them. What do they look like?
Almost anyone you ask will give you a different answer.
I'm curious as to the why though. Why do you think there was never a version that really captured the public's attention and became THE Mr. Hyde?
And while we're on the subject What IS your preferred Mr. Hyde?
(https://i.imgur.com/CUFH6Ek.jpg)
Marvel comics had one.
(http://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Mister-Hyde-Marvel-Comics-Thor-Early.jpg)
I'm familiar with Marvel's Mr. Hyde. Sometimes he fought daredevil, sometimes he fought Thor. He was very inconsistent powerwise.
The Fredic March one...
Too bad 'london after midnight' scored this makeup or it would be an iconic hyde.
(http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Chaney%20Sr.,%20Lon/Chaney%20Sr.,%20Lon%20(London%20After%20Midnight)_01.jpg)
Spencer Tracey's version was the most subtle and understated, and the on most likely to pass for a human being.
(http://www.spookyisles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Spencer-Tracy-as-Dr-Jekyll-and-Mr-Hyde.jpg)
Quote from: Chainsaw midget on August 11, 2018, 09:52:52 PM
I'm familiar with Marvel's Mr. Hyde. Sometimes he fought daredevil, sometimes he fought Thor. He was very inconsistent powerwise.
All muscle, no skill.
Funny that you mention the London after Midnight Vampire, because I have seen a lot of artworks that used his design and called it Mr. Hyde.
I'll go with this version:
(http://i2.wp.com/midnitereviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Dr.-Jekyll-and-Mr.-Hyde-1931-4.jpg)
My favorite is the March version as well.
When the Tracy version was made, MGM had bought the rights, and kept the March version from being shown for about 30 years.
The ICONIC Mr. Hyde is FREDRIC MARCH.
The SPENCER TRACY Hyde proves that his acting could be QUITE hammy.
The March Hyde stands out in a crowd and would attract immediate hostilty. The Tracey Hyde looks human enough to pass in a crowd. Also his Hyde was more of a personality change not a physical transformation.
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on August 12, 2018, 04:55:46 PM
The March Hyde stands out in a crowd and would attract immediate hostilty. The Tracey Hyde looks human enough to pass in a crowd. Also his Hyde was more of a personality change not a physical transformation.
Yeh, we know. That version sucks.
Quote from: Allhallowsday on August 12, 2018, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on August 12, 2018, 04:55:46 PM
The March Hyde stands out in a crowd and would attract immediate hostilty. The Tracey Hyde looks human enough to pass in a crowd. Also his Hyde was more of a personality change not a physical transformation.
Yeh, we know. That version sucks.
I can't argue with that. The 31 version was sexier, for one thing. Miriam Hopkins was so much better as the beaten prostitute than Ingrid's distressed dancer. Its like comparing the Chaney Phantom with the Claude Rains Phantom. There's no comparison.
Second is most certainly Barrymore. After those 2- it all became parody.
Though I gotta say- loved Tony Perkins in EDGE OF SANITY (1989)
Quote from: RCMerchant on August 12, 2018, 06:26:57 PM
Quote from: Allhallowsday on August 12, 2018, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on August 12, 2018, 04:55:46 PM
The March Hyde stands out in a crowd and would attract immediate hostilty. The Tracey Hyde looks human enough to pass in a crowd. Also his Hyde was more of a personality change not a physical transformation.
Yeh, we know. That version sucks.
I can't argue with that. The 31 version was sexier, for one thing. Miriam Hopkins was so much better as the beaten prostitute than Ingrid's distressed dancer. Its like comparing the Chaney Phantom with the Claude Rains Phantom. There's no comparison.
Second is most certainly Barrymore. After those 2- it all became parody.
Though I gotta say- loved Tony Perkins in EDGE OF SANITY (1989)
MIRIAM HOPKINS found the only role I know of where I
didn't want her to be strangled.
INGRID BERGMAN is the
ONLY reason to even look at the
SPENCER TRACY Hyde. She's a bad girl, and the best thing in the film by far. The rest is self-conscious soapsuds.
I think the Gilligan version is iconic.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ae/0c/19/ae0c19700b4b58dc1e01db703532ba13.jpg)
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on August 12, 2018, 04:55:46 PM
The March Hyde stands out in a crowd and would attract immediate hostilty. The Tracey Hyde looks human enough to pass in a crowd. Also his Hyde was more of a personality change not a physical transformation.
The March Hyde has an iconic makeup worthy of any of the Universal monsters of that era..Tracy looks a bit disturbed but that's all..a visitor to the set at the time of filming couldnt tell whether he was playing Jekyll or Hyde. Im sure there was no difficulty when March was on set as either character.
Quote from: Ticonderoga 64 on August 13, 2018, 07:45:20 PM
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on August 12, 2018, 04:55:46 PM
The March Hyde stands out in a crowd and would attract immediate hostilty. The Tracey Hyde looks human enough to pass in a crowd. Also his Hyde was more of a personality change not a physical transformation.
The March Hyde has an iconic makeup worthy of any of the Universal monsters of that era..Tracy looks a bit disturbed but that's all..a visitor to the set at the time of filming couldnt tell whether he was playing Jekyll or Hyde. Im sure there was no difficulty when March was on set as either character.
You're right, the [point in the March hyde is hard to accept as someone who could walk i to a bar without an immediate "WTF IS THAT?!?!" response.
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on August 14, 2018, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Ticonderoga 64 on August 13, 2018, 07:45:20 PM
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on August 12, 2018, 04:55:46 PM
The March Hyde stands out in a crowd and would attract immediate hostilty. The Tracey Hyde looks human enough to pass in a crowd. Also his Hyde was more of a personality change not a physical transformation.
The March Hyde has an iconic makeup worthy of any of the Universal monsters of that era..Tracy looks a bit disturbed but that's all..a visitor to the set at the time of filming couldnt tell whether he was playing Jekyll or Hyde. Im sure there was no difficulty when March was on set as either character.
You're right, the [point in the March hyde is hard to accept as someone who could walk i to a bar without an immediate "WTF IS THAT?!?!" response.
As shown in the film, there usually was that kind of response when others viewed March's Hyde..the whole point was the extreme in personalities, not bouts of manic hysteria as shown in the 1941 version(which is almost a scene by scene weaker remake with big names) of the 1931 version.Part of the reason that Tracy's Hyde is not more horrific in appearance is that he refused to wear any kind of feature altering makeup. Hyde, as described in the book, was certainly bizarre in appearance and didnt look like someone who was just plain nuts as did Tracy's version, he was distorted and twisted in appearance. There have been many Mr.Hydes, the March one certainly is iconic, hell, even John Barrymore's is pretty memorable, but Tracy's doesnt even scratch the surface as far as being an iconic one.
And then there's this version of Hyde :wink:
(http://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/5d/66/a35d66a9bb8a32464abe758fdace3ab4.jpg)
This is the iconic version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Maybe not in name but certainly in concept.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0d/4b/b1/0d4bb105afb05f378bb026c034473488--marvel-avengers-alliance-marvel-comics.jpg)
Stan Lee, himself, cited the work as partially inspiring the Hulk
I decided I might as well borrow from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as well—our protagonist would constantly change from his normal identity to his superhuman alter ego and back again
-Stan Lee