zlacker

> Frankenstein and Death by Lightning were two standout successes recently.

IMHO Frankenstein" was pretty terrible. The makeup was awful, the effects were cheap, the monster... wasn't a monster! The entire premise depends on him being a monster, not some sort of misunderstood, sympathetic EMO.

>>josefr+(OP)
I was surprised at how many shots that I thought were terrible CGI were in fact practical effects.

>>josefr+(OP)
> The entire premise depends on him being a monster, not some sort of misunderstood, sympathetic EMO.

This is a misconception on a similar level to thinking the monster's name is Frankenstein: "As depicted by Shelley, the creature is a sensitive, emotional person whose only aim is to share his life with another sentient being like himself."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein%27s_monster#Perso...

>>josefr+(OP)
> The entire premise depends on him being a monster

Have you read the book? She emphasises how pretty all the body parts that Victor picked were.

>>josefr+(OP)
> The entire premise depends on him being a monster, not some sort of misunderstood, sympathetic EMO.

Uh, the "monster" is definitely the most sympathetic character in the original novel.

>>josefr+(OP)
Personally, I didn't like it that much. Super long, droll, the casting was misstepped, and they changed the ending.

>>enrage+H9
Thanks for stating the obvious and I assure you I know the story well. In order for the entire premise to work, there needs to be this conflict or tension between the perception of the "monster" and the true reality of his humanity. This movie failed at effectively portraying this conflict by humanizing the monster too much. Just my 2 cents.

>>butlik+fj
It was too long.

>>Arkhai+qg
>His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.

As I said, the contrast between "pretty" or "human" traits vs "monster" just wasn't there.

>>jimbok+0h
Sympathetic sure! But the story doesn't work without the contrast between his outward horrid appearance and his inner humanity.

>>josefr+zo
Completely agree. The movie ruined Dr. Frankenstein's motives by adding his benefactor, and ruined his monster by removing the inner rage he felt and expressed towards the world the shunned him. A very, very odd decision by GDT. Similar to Spike Lee remaking High & Low, but removing the critique of capitalism and the complicity of the wealthy so he could make Denzel the true protagonist.

>>josefr+(OP)
The creature was always supposed to be a mix of sympathetic and monstrous. He becomes a monster by turning himself implacably toward revenge, but we can sympathize with him for what sets him on that path. The entire premise rests more on Victor being a monster. I thought the movie handled both of those fairly well. There's really no living director who gets the Gothic sensibility quite as well as del Toro.

>>enrage+H9
I disagree that it's a misconception. Yes, the premise is that the true 'monster' was the creator, but the monster itself is intentionally grotesque and disfigured to teach us the beauty on the inside lesson.

>>slumbe+PD
He is unsettling but definitely not simply grotesque and disfigured:

> His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.

>>josefr+zo
Ah, I understand what you mean. I don't think the viewer necessarily needs to experience the dissonance personally for the premise to work. That said, I agree that it could have afforded being less black and white, it at times felt like a children's movie with how plainly the message is communicated.

>>NoGrav+2B
The movie removed all nuance from the story. The monster having monstrous traits is an important part of the book

>>josefr+(OP)
Eh, I like an interesting spin on a classic. I’ve seen/heard the Frankenstein plot and small variations on it many times, taking a different direction is a good way to keep in a general universe but develop something new. If you’re not going to come up with new interesting content, at least don’t rehash the exact story I’ve heard many times. But that’s just my preference—I really enjoyed it and have become a fan of Guillermo del Toro works recently (due to exposure on Netflix). I’m not huge critic really so I won’t speak to artistic merit but I can at least say I really enjoyed it.

>>enrage+PL
That definitely sounds grotesque to me. Sure not "simply grotesque", but grotesque in a complex way.

>>josefr+zo
>there needs to be this conflict or tension between the perception of the "monster" and the true reality of his humanity

I think a proper subversion would be to remove that tension and see the peppes reaction anyway. That shows the true reality of humanity once you're on the "other side" after decades of older generations thinking otherwise.

>>HDThor+vY
I think it's less about the traits and more about the reaction to the creation.