The Frankenstein Movies were Great Movie Classics. But they Did a Disservice to the Novel.

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2021
16,403
13,324
2,288
Texas
It was a great novel, written by a young woman from a literary family. She was the original Goth Girl.

Anyway, what follows is a semi-spoiler of the book, but it will only spoiler it if you have not seen the movies made for it.

There is a plot twist at the end, that cannot translate into a movie.

In the novel, the central narrator, Dr Victor Frankenstein, appears to be an unreliable one. By that I mean, Dr Frankenstein is a narrator within a narration by a ship's captain who is repeating the story that Frankenstein told him in letter to his wife.

In the movies, there is an elaborate explanation of how Frankenstein brought the monster to life, that often takes up at least a quarter of the screen time. In the book Frankenstein simply says, WTTE of I tried to do it and surprisingly did it.

As Frankenstein tell the story, the reader has to think that the monster he speaks of creating and unleashing on the world is an illusion, a hallucination or a false memory. It seems more likely that it is Frankenstein who is committing all the murders that he attributes to the monster, and that his pursuit of the imagined monster is part of his insanity. The monster has super-human strength, and always seems to appear to taunt Frankenstein when Frankenstein is despairing of ever catching him. He seems to whisper in Frankenstein's ear though he is rowing across a lake with super human speed while Frankenstein watches from shore.

The plot twist is that at the end of the novel, Frankenstein aboard the captain's ship, and the monster appears to the Captain. Surprise! Either it is real, or the Captain has succumbed to the fantasy also.


Great movies, yes. But read the book before you see them, if you haven't already.
 
A film and a novel are two different art forms. They cannot be identical and should not be identical. What works in one medium doesn't work in another medium.

I have read a series of novels by Michael Connelly about a Detective Bosch. Very good reading. I have also seen a television series based on the books. Michael Connelly is an "Executive Producer" of the TV series.

The Television series has added a major character - a live-in daughter - first as a mid-teen, and now in the follow-up series as a rookie cop. Connelly is fine with it. It enhances the story FOR TELEVISION, but would not have added anything to the novels.

No problem.
 
All movies do a disservice of one kind or another to the books on which they are based.

Two entirely different types of story-telling.
 
I agree that novels and movies are much different. But there are some movies that have presented the story of a novel without ruining the novel. In fact, I normally prefer to see the movie first, and then read the novel. That way, instead of saying, Why did they leave out _________, that was one of the best parts?” I can say, “I like the stuff in the novel that didn’t make it to the screen.

Some examples of movies that left a lot out, but were still great movies and the novel was still great:

One Flew Over the Coo Coo’s nest.
The Caine Mutiny.
Catch 22
Slaughter House Five
Little Big Man

Some that missed:

The Jack Reacher movies (the series is much better)
Runaway Jury
 
A film and a novel are two different art forms. They cannot be identical and should not be identical. What works in one medium doesn't work in another medium.
I second this. Charlotte's Web had a goose and a gander in the book. During the animated film, there wasn't a gander character in it.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I never did see the real life film that was done in 2006.
 
I second this. Charlotte's Web had a goose and a gander in the book. During the animated film, there wasn't a gander character in it.
Oh no!

What about the sauce then?
God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I never did see the real life film that was done in 2006.
Of Charlotte’s Web or Frankenstein?

Blessings to you also. I have so many, I feel I should share them, until I realize one far greater than I is in charge of that distribution chain.
 
I am not sure if Shelly wanted the reader to come to this conclusion but to me, Baron Frankenstein spent his life chasing a hallucination. The monster was the creation of his own mind.
 
Forrest Gump is a hilarious novel, focusing on a giant, muscular fellow, so big and strong that he became a college football star with little preparation. The film makers wanted Tom Hanks to be the star, so had to contrive some way to make that extremely average fellow believable as a football star. They gave him childhood polio and a magical cure. Utterly ridiculous and not the least bit believable. But this was Tom Fucking Hanks(!) so the audience bought it.

BTW the novel is much much more gooder (and funny) than the film.
 
^^^ I never knew that a book was out there first before the Forest Gump film.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. My favorite film based on a book is The Outsiders.
 

Forum List

Back
Top