You gotta admit, the movie does pale when compared to the novel

Not for me. Always hated the dull book, always loved the superb movie!

well the movie is probably one of the first true enduring classics of american film making. and when mary shelley wrote the novel, it could be argued she invented modern science-fiction.so no matter how many times it gets spoofed, it holds a pretty important place in the history of english language literature.

it was actually based on a play based on the novel.

I actually like the novel and the book. Thing is there couldn't be a faithful adaptation of the novel in the 30s. This was a time where nobody could even make a movie with the word jerk in it. The violence in movies had to be severally censored just to get released. What some people might not know is that some of the scenes that we've seen in this movie weren't there in the time it was made. For instance the scene of the little girl getting thrown into the water by the monster was not there when they released it in the 30s. They thankfully did keep footage of it though. The line, "In the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!" was taken out of the final film as well because of it being considered too controversial for audiences of the time.

I'm not sure some parts of the novel could even be done now. For instance there's a part in the novel where the monster sees a little boy who starts screaming when he sees the monster. Then the boy says his father's name is Frankenstein and the monster realizes this is a relative of his creator who he hates. So he kills the boy by choking him to death. Then he takes a locket the boy has on him and puts it into the pocket of a woman sleeping in a barn nearby who just happens to be the Maid of Frankenstein's family. She gets convicted for murdering the boy she had the locket and is put to death for it.


You couldn't have that in the 30s. You really couldn't do that scene today either because it involves a child. I do kind of wish there could be a faithful adaptation of the novel but I haven't seen one that is that faithful. Like Marry Shelly's Frankenstein changes it so the monster kills his wife and then asks Victor to bring her back to life. And he does. Completely unlike the novel there.

The only time though I ever thought the film was way better than the novel is the case of Forrest Gump. I maybe biased though since I watched the movie several times years before reading the book. They really are complete opposites of each other. Book Forrest is described as a 6 and a half foot tall huge muscular man. He also cusses a lot. He also isn't the nice guy he's portrayed in the movie. For instance there's a part in the book where Forrest as a teenager gets asked to go into an apartment by his older female neighbor and she has sex with him. All he really thinks is it would be nice to do that with Jenny. I am not making that up. Then there's rather unbelievable things that happen like Forrest getting sent to space where he loses control of his spaceship and crashes in an island full of cannibals somewhere. He ends up living there for several years. Then there's a part in the book where Forrest becomes a professional wrestler. Then he even gets to make a Creature from the Black Lagoon movie with Rachelle Welch. So really with all this said you might can understand why I prefer the movie.

Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw

[deleted]

I'll say it seems very BRIEF compared to the book. Pair it up with Bride of Frankenstein though, it becomes a much more complete...though still very loose...retelling of the story.

The movie does not pale compared to the novel. It is cinematically powerful and has endured as a classic for nearly ninety years. It was not intended to be just a rendering on film of the novel. It succeeds beautifully as a movie, which is exactly what its makers set out to do.