MovieChat Forums > Frankenstein (1931) Discussion > Nothing Like the Novel

Nothing Like the Novel

posted 9 years ago by alerasoul
8 replies | jump to latest

I guess I want discussion to look like a comparison of this movie to the novel. I don't normally like to compare films with their written counterparts, but in this case, I felt like the film wasn't entertaining at all because of its deviation from the book. Don't get me wrong, I'm a film buff, and I have enormous respect for all sorts of older films. Just not this one.

"Frankenstein" deviated from the Mary Shelley's novel as much as Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" deviated from Pierre Boulle's book.

-------------
"Rescue the damsel in distress; kill the bad guy; save the world."
--Rick O'Connell

[–] joystar5879 9 years ago

FRANKENSTEIN (1931) was based on a 1920s play by Peggy Webling. If you'd like something closer to the original Shelley, go to FRANKENSTEIN, THE TRUE STORY or any of the Peter Cushing/HAMMER Studios interpretations.

I do hope he won't upset Henry...

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 8 years ago

I don't see how the Cushing movies were like the book. In them, Frankenstein is a sadistic baron rather than an idealizing student in Switzerland.

Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

I felt like the film wasn't entertaining at all because of its deviation from the book.

Just treat the movie as a movie then.

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 9 years ago

Bride of Frankenstein has some elements from the book that weren't in this one.

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

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 9 years ago

I don't normally like to compare films with their written counterparts...

So why ignore that guideline now? If there's any movie it's useful for, it's this one.

[–] CovertThunder 8 years ago

As someone else said the film Frankenstein was also an adaptation of a play rather than the book so there were already some pre-existing changes (I'm pretty sure Fritz first appeared in a play) but in my opinion they were positive changes.

I've read the book and thought it was great, and I've seen the Universal and Hammer adaptations and I think they're great too. The book of Frankenstein is somewhat lengthy and saturated to be adapted straight into a film, especially with the budget of a 1930's film.

In my opinion Universal's decision for the sequel, Bride of Frankenstein, to incorporate more elements and themes from the same book, was an incredibly smart decision. Granted, BOF created a lot of wholly original aspects for the film that weren't in the book but if you look at Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein together, I'd say they do the book (or at least what Mary Shelly was trying to convey) justice.

Hell, Dracula was also based on a play and was extremely different from the book, but it's IMO an okay movie, although my favorite adaptation of the story is either Nosferatu or Hammer's Horror of Dracula, which both make multiple changes to the story as well.

Can't be too careful with all those weirdos running around.

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 8 years ago

I will say the story of the book which involves the monster killing Frankenstein's little kid brother and framing his father's maid for the murder along with later killing Frankenstein's friend and wife would not have worked for a movie in the 30s. They couldn't film things that graphic and audiences would be turned off if the love interest died.

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

[–] liscarkat (16483) 3 years ago

It's not like the novel because it's not the novel. Films are a separate art form, not merely a technological device to transfer books to a visual medium. The makers of "Frankenstein" did not intend for it to be the novel. They succeeded brilliantly in making a very good movie.