Inconsistencies galore!


I love these old Universal Classics! However, they are somewhat laughable at all of their inconsistencies with ongoing plots and "facts". My favorite example is, in House of Frankenstein, Karloff's character is told by two policemen that the Frankenstein Monster and the Wolfman were both destroyed several years earlier when the castle was flooded. In the SAME film, the mayor of a neighboring village visits the Dracula skeleton show and is annoyed that people are so gullible to believe in such "rubbish". So, if you lived in that area, you could believe that Frankenstein/WolfMan existed, but Dracula could only be a MYTH? ????????

reply

[deleted]

Actually, it is not at all clear how far apart in geography and time the Dracula and Frankenstein/Wolfman parts of HoF are set. While it is true that Niemann and Karl do go directly from the first locality to the second, the distance--and therefore the travelling time--is quite unclear.

As for HoD, this is set on a coast, which does not seem to be the case at all for HoF. Directly downstream, yes, but just how far is again quite unclear. On the other hand, it takes Dracula so little effort--and, more importantly, evidence--to convince Edelman of his true identity/nature, the physician clearly has an open mind about such things, possibly induced by his knowledge of the Niemann affair, however academic that might have been until finding Franky with Niemann's bones. That either--let alone both--Dracula and Larry "Wolfman" Talbot are fully active at the outset of this film after the events of the previous one is a point much more open to challenge.

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

reply

If your favorite example is from House of Frankenstein, why are you posting on the message board for Son of Frankenstein! lol

reply

I can easily see how one can believe in both the Frankenstein monster and the wolf man but not in Dracula. Dracula is too far fetch since his home is all the way in Transylvania

reply