Quote from: King Kang Kong on November 04, 2014, 08:30:48 PM
My mistake, I thought the whole point of those figures was that they were non-likeness. But I suppose they needed to get the Lugosi license to put the picture on the packaging.

Sorry you didn't like our  early UM figures, Count. The line has evolved since then.

I believe the point was to make them "retro". The Remco Mini-Monsters are from that period in time (when the Kenner vintage "Star Wars" figures were released), and look much better than the ReAction/Funko figures. If anything, these are a step backwards.

King Kang Kong, I'm a Dracula fanatic. If you ever revisit Dracula as a figure, all I ask is for better articulation. I know you can't do a Lugosi likeness (unless Junior is willing to negotiate), so I'm not even going to go there. Maybe a non-movie version, to go with non-movie Van Helsing? Something perhaps based more on his description in Bram Stoker's book?

I am only repeating what I have heard.  I do not know this to be fact, but regarding the Funko Drac, I believe that "likeness rights" to use the picture on the card did not necessarily extend to sculptural rights to use the likeness on the figure itself.

I don't quite understand the estate's tight-assed hold on the likeness.  The guy is more than 100 years old, right?  We may know the name "Billy the Kid" but how many people in 2014 actually know what Billy looked like?  Why the bad analogy?  Eventually, if you are too tightly controlling the likeness it's going to fade out of popular memory forever, then what have you accomplished?

I certainly understand getting what's due to you, but if if I'm an actor, put my face on everything.  I'd be a cheap whore. 

 I think Bela's son has been reacting to the constant shaft his father got from Universal. He was paid $3,000 for Dracula (less than supporting actor, David Manners) and it went down from there. When he saw the original Aurora kit and realized the estate was getting nothing from that (and other merchandising) he decided that was enough. They weren't going to screw his dad in his coffin. I kinda understand it (though I really wish that he and Universal could come to some kind of agreement).

Quote from: Mord on November 07, 2014, 06:21:47 PM
I think Bela's son has been reacting to the constant shaft his father got from Universal. He was paid $3,000 for Dracula (less than supporting actor, David Manners) and it went down from there. When he saw the original Aurora kit and realized the estate was getting nothing from that (and other merchandising) he decided that was enough. They weren't going to screw his dad in his coffin. I kinda understand it (though I really wish that he and Universal could come to some kind of agreement).

Universal has had such a legacy of screwing the actors' estates over, that the Chaneys are suing for over $1 million in unpaid royalties. Ron doesn't even need the money, but it is owed them. Plus, he can put something aside for his kids, this way.

Quote from: Count_Zirock on November 07, 2014, 06:48:05 PMUniversal has had such a legacy of screwing the actors' estates over, that the Chaneys are suing for over $1 million in unpaid royalties. Ron doesn't even need the money, but it is owed them.

Since (I'm assuming) the matter is being litigated in civil court, it can't be clear whether any royalties are still owed. If there really were clear and obvious unpaid royalties, that would constitute theft and the proper thing for Ron Chaney to do would be to lay criminal charges so that the perpetrators of the theft would face jail time. And had Chaney laid criminal charges instead of filing a civil suit, it would be clear to one and all that this was indeed a matter of principle for Chaney and that he wasn't just out for a quick buck.

This is a topic I am torn on. I hate Universal's treatment of Bela Lugosi. But I sure do like getting Bela Lugosi merchandise!

Quote from: Anton Phibes on November 10, 2014, 09:40:09 PM
This is a topic I am torn on. I hate Universal's treatment of Bela Lugosi. But I sure do like getting Bela Lugosi merchandise!

I think most of us here would be more than willing to pay a few bucks more per figure for authentic Bela likenesses. I wish the powers that be could figure that out. I would much rather pay $30 for a Bela Dracula than 15 or 20 bucks for another, lousy generic Dracula. Are you listening, DST? Pay more for the license, charge us more for the figure, but give us something worth owning.

Quote from: Mord on November 11, 2014, 12:08:18 AM
I think most of us here would be more than willing to pay a few bucks more per figure for authentic Bela likenesses. I wish the powers that be could figure that out. I would much rather pay $30 for a Bela Dracula than 15 or 20 bucks for another, lousy generic Dracula. Are you listening, DST? Pay more for the license, charge us more for the figure, but give us something worth owning.

Well, I don't know about $30 for a 7" action figure. $25, I'd be okay with. DST has to take into consideration what price points retailers are willing to bear, too. Toys 'R' Us might not think $20 is a reasonable price point for what they consider seasonal toy items. Maybe DST should consider a Broadway's Dracula figure, as Moebius Models did with their Lugosi kits.

Count Z speaks the truth, Mord. Knowing that there ARE people (actual number un-knowable) out there who would pay more for a figure that looks like Bela but costs more to make doesn't mean that that fits into our overall system of distribution. We've set a precedent, and retailers are not necessarily going to be interested in paying more for a single figure in the line, including the biggest buyer, TRU. Not saying it will never happen, but we may have already closed that door.

And I doubt a workaround Broadway Dracula is something we'd want to do as a Universal licensee.

 That makes sense, KKK. I was just grasping at straws. Thanks for your knowledgeable response, I look forward to whatever you guys are cooking up for next year (Wolfman, fingers crossed).