opiate_lifer t1_j2be0z6 wrote
What has always boggled my mind is the original novel is almost written like a screenplay, extremely visual and intriguing! Starts in the Arctic with Doctor Frankenstein being rescued, and sighting of a bizarre pursuer in the distance and then the whole thing is told in flashback. The monster is more like Roy Batty confronting Tyrell in Blade Runner than the "Urgggh Arrrgh!" movie monster.
Easily one of the worst movie adaptations ever, yet the movie monster is what is culturally iconic which is a shame.
Boccs t1_j2bzno3 wrote
Right up there with the adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in terms of "missing the point of the book" since in the book Jekyll's serum didn't do anything to his personality at all, only temporarily changed his appearance. It's just under the safety of anonymity Dr. Jekyll was allowed to do all the awful hedonistic shit he wanted to do normally but couldn't because it would damage his reputation as a proper Victorian gentleman. No personality disorders, no change of mentality, just a guy who found out how to be an asshole without people knowing it was him.
Meanwhile 90% of movies make it a magic potion that alters his psyche and body to make them two separate entities fighting for control like a less green Incredible Hulk.
temporarysecretary17 t1_j2cbmmn wrote
The problem is everyone already knows the book’s twist, so a faithful adaptation would simply not be that interesting,
Boccs t1_j2cckyz wrote
At this juncture I'd argue a faithful adaptation would actually be more surprising to general audiences. Most people these days associate the story with the personality disorder interpretation, so sticking to the original story would probably throw a lot of people for a loop.
temporarysecretary17 t1_j2ccp9h wrote
Maybe for the first 10 minutes. I don’t think people would be interested enough to pay money to watch it.
Boccs t1_j2cgulw wrote
I mean that could be said of any version of Jekyll and Hyde. They've seen the personality monster so many times that's not going to draw any more people than running it accurately to the book would.
temporarysecretary17 t1_j2cbjm7 wrote
> Easily one of the worst movie adaptations ever
I will always defend universal Frankenstein. It’s a different take on the character but still a pretty valid one. Especially with bride of Frankenstein which is better than the original, as the movie monster is a completely different character they go through different arcs, but it’s still a good one.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments