Talk:Frankenstein in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Popular Culture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of popular culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Horror  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Comics (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 



Thanks[edit]

Thanks, Jayunderscorezero, for organizing the unclassified entries and checking for duplicates. -- Stbalbach 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! I see this sort of thing a lot, though usually not helpfully separated and classified as it was here.Jayunderscorezero 10:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein[edit]

The above title for this film has just as much authority (plus makes more sense!) as the pedantic 'Bud Abbott Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein', which the IMDb and a previous editor here seem to be in favor of. The latter version of the title is not 'official', nor is the IMBd an official authority for film titles. Nor is the IMBd infallible...Colin4C 19:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon's removals and Stbalbach's reversion thereof[edit]

I think the anon did the right thing. Look at the language that was removed:

  • one of the most strikingly terrifying movies in cinema -- says who?
  • gloriously perverse -- says who? What does that mean, anyway?
  • star-studded psychological masterpiece -- at the very best, overly flowerly; who says "masterpiece"?
  • It is fitting, for a character like Frankenstein, that the series should consist of a set of disparate elements connected together and viewed as one entity --says who?
  • over-done makeup -- says who?
  • somewhat heretically -- says who?
  • vastly superior --says who?
  • (It's a mystery in all these type films how controlling a mindless thug can lead to world conquest.) -- says who?
  • Two reviews of upcoming or current films, uncredited and uncited
  • Unaired pilot -- cite?
  • An episode of Star Trek The Next Generation # 403 Brothers has evil twin Lore kill his father/Creator Dr Sung -- which has what to do with Frankenstein, other than patricide (hardly unique to the Frankenstein mythos)

I suggest that the anon did the right thing removing pretty much all of that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is when you remove the above, you end up with nothing - no context, no placement in history, no reasoning, no significance - no reason for the information to be in the article - we are writing actual prose here, saying why things are notable, not making a list of dry facts. I'm not saying the language can't be improved, but removing it wholesale is removing content as well. Use {fact} tags, change words etc.. but keep the rationales and context - we are reporting on works of art, there are some things that are just plain obvious and not controversial. -- Stbalbach 17:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"Gloriously perverse" is plain obvious? "heretically"? "psychological masterpiece"? The "it is fitting" opinion? "Vastly superior"? Maybe. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I left in how the 1931 Frankenstien was the most famous, and that Bride of Frankenstein was considered the best sequel in any genre. I only removed some flowery language, some stupid comments, and POV comments. Saying a movie is great, or saying it is bad, is POV, no matter what movie. I also removed the unaired pilot since it was mentioned earlier, and in greater detail, in the Hammer section. -69.110.235.31 18:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Don Glut[edit]

I've started gathering material regarding Don Glut, his Frankenstein books and other items on the main Frankenstein's monster talk page. Might it be better placed here? Icarus 23 17:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh) more references to investigate... [1] Icarus 23 18:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

short subject[edit]

Today on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) there was a 3-D short subject which featured the Frankenstein Monster, and called it "Frankenstein" - did anyone see that, could they add this to the list? Itzik18 06:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation?[edit]

This is a useful article, but shouldn't there also be simple disambiguation page called Frankenstein (disambiguation) that lists the novel, several movies called Frankenstein and the Edgar Winter song, among other items?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be done, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be redundant. The purpose of dab pages is for navigation purposes, if a work could have a link then it could be included. It basically would just repeat what's in this page, and the two probably would get out of sync and be confusing. -- Stbalbach 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

comics.[edit]

we need to add the creatures appearances in the comic called fables. as he was a major protagonist in the story arc. wolfman vs frankenstein or something. like that. but my memory is etchy. i seem to remember that he survives just as a head.

If you start it out then someone else can come along and fill in any details you are hazy on. (Emperor 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Echoes of Frankenstein in Star Wars?[edit]

Influences?[edit]

The entire 'influences' section is redundant with the purpose of the article, and mostly uncited anyway. I'll try to incorporate more of it into the body of the article, then delete the section. BoosterBronze (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein in popular culture[edit]

Frankenstein has undoubtedly been instrumental both as a literary figure by Mary Shelley during the advent of English penny dreadful novels intended for mass distribution for literate working people, but most scholars suggest it was less about horror and more about giving birth, and the fear men have (and women, to an extent) to giving birth to a monster. The obvious contributions stretch from the song, "Frankenstein" by Edgar Winter, to novels and other possible notable references.. with the rich group of references in the External links section to all the other references waiting to be used, it seems a wiki group could weave those references within the text, although they still sit, awaiting attention. BTW, External links sections are not citation parking lots. They belong in the text, or here on the talk page. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition to the Stage adaptations list[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Webling I have no knowledge of it other than the credit at the beginning of the 1931 film version, but shouldn't there be a mention of the 1927 play? Hope this helps, Darci (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)