Talk:Frankenstein (1931 film)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frankenstein (1931 film) article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
References to use
- Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
- McMahon, Jennifer L. (2007). "The Existential Frankenstein". In Sanders, Steven M. The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 73–90. ISBN 0813124727.
The article states that the film was "very loosely based on" the novel, but wasn't it in fact more or less an accurate translation of a popular stageplay running at the time? Granted, the play would have been loosely based on the novel, but in the interest of accuracy shouldn't the play be credited as the source? 18.104.22.168 22:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are right, but that point is clarified further down in the same paragraph. David L Rattigan 09:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- The novel has been adapted several times, with stage productions appearing as early as the 1820s. Many of the playwrights changed or added parts of the plot, often borrowing from one another. Universal's take on Frankenstein was no exception, so it would be justified to call it "based on motifs of the novel". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- How technical do we want to get? The actual film credit for the novel does not list the author as Mary Shelley but rather using the old-fashioned form "Mrs. Percy B. Shelley". We of course know she was married to the poet, etc. Do we want to use this in the infobox to accurately reflect the film? I'd say to list her name as Mary Shelley but put in something like (credited as Mrs. Percy B. Shelley)Sir Rhosis (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
ERROR: Frankenstein does not call monster "Herr Frankenstein"
There seems to be a lot of people expanding and editing this article lately; some is good, some is bad. It appears a lot of people want to play film historian and this is a very historic picture indeed; however a lot of it is coming off like Original Research and, frankly, a lot of it reads like a school essay. But one recent addition is a glaring error that I feel compelled to remove but not without an explanation. I know that some people work hard on their contributions and I wouldn't remove it if it wasn't a blatant error: In the trivia section (which has now apparently become the go off in a tangent section) someone asserts that Frankenstein calls the monster "Herr Frankenstein" in the scene where he is reaching for sunlight, implying that the popular mistake of calling the monster "Frankenstein" may have begun with this scene. It is in fact WALDMAN saying "Take care, Herr Frankenstein, take care", or something very close to that, TO FRANKENSTEIN. Apart from the fact that should be obvious... it's clear to me that it's Waldman's voice, plus, think about it... Henry Frankenstein has just opened the skylight so the monster can experience sunlight for the first time. He wants the monster to see it and feel it. Why would he suddenly freak out and tell the monster to be careful? What danger is there in the sunlight? But, the line is said just as Henry approaches the monster... and it is clearly said BY WALDMAN as a warning TO FRANKENSTEIN not to get too close to an 8 foot monster with a defective brain! But the bottom line is this can be confirmed by turning on the English subtitles on the DVD, where, as the line is spoken off camera, they attribute it to Waldman (it reads something like "Waldman: Take care, herr Frankenstein, take care"). So, since this is an error, and then the author goes on to a whole tangent based on this error, I feel compelled to remove it. There is a similar event that actually does take place in Bride of Frankenstein, in which Dr. Pretorius clearly says "The bride of Frankenstein!" in reference to the two monsters. This (along with a line by Lord Byron in the prologue that could be interpreted similarly) is the real first occurance in a Universal film of someone erroneously referring to the monster as Frankenstein.Cris Varengo 15:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
How was it his error? He was startled, thus he dropped the "normal brain", a jar in which a normal human brain was in; after having done this, he grabbed the next available one - that of a murderer, an "abnormal brain". Qwerty (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you explained his error right there. He didn't read what the label on the jar said, and therefore his carelessness in choosing a replacement was the creation of the monster itself. -The Photoplayer 02:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Both jars were labeled - The fault should be with Dr. Frankenstein unless Fritz brought him the brain in his bare hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Scary monster list
Shouldn't we add as to why the monster was put on the list (drwoning a small child) I mean if I hadn't actually red the list I would still be in the dark about it.188.8.131.52 09:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The sequels and parodies section needs cleaning up. -- Beardo 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Clean up needed
Can someone -- preferable the person who posted it -- clean up the second paragraph of what is now called the "Production" section? I really can't make heads or tails out of it, and would hate to just delete it if someone can make sense of it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
One difference between the book and the film
From the article:
- In the novel, Frankenstein's name is Victor, not Henry (Henry Clerval was the name of Victor's best friend) and he is not a doctor, but rather a college student of numerous sciences.
Is it actually stated in the film that Henry Frankenstein was a doctor? I viewed the film on TCM the other night and from the dialogue, it seemed pretty clear that Henry was a student under Dr. Waldman and left his studies prematurely because the university was hindering his experiments. Given the pseudo-scientific disciplines Henry had mastered in the film besides medicine and given that a medical degree is hardly necessary for patching together body parts, the description given above of the Victor character from the novel seems perfect for Henry as well. Thoughts? --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
In popular culture
Should there be an "In popular culture" or "legacy" section? It seems appropriate, since it is such an iconic film and has been referenced many times in other media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)