Talk:Frankenstein's monster/Archive 1

Article Title

On a point of pedantry, I don't know how to rename an article, but Monster should be a capital M there. (Yes, the Creature is a monster, small-m, but "Frankenstein's Monster" is a proper name.) Robin Johnson 10:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Bolt

It's been changed back and forth a few times now, so I suggest we discuss this. I'm not a Frankenstein expert, so I'm suprised to see much of my original text in here. That's beside the point.

The bolts in his neck. Were they always there or not? Modern invention? Does it matter?

--Fourthgeek 06:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

They're certainly not mentioned in the novel. I believe Boris Karloff has them in the 1931 film; that's probably the origin of most of the 'popular culture' image of the Monster. I think there should be separate discussions of the physical description of the monster in the novel (on which very little information is actually given) and the popular image - maybe I'll hack osmething in later. (...later: done.) Robin Johnson 10:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the bolts in his neck, I always had the impression that they were to secure the head to the neck. This impression is just mine, it's interesting how one"assumes" something is accepted knowledge, without any actual evidence. If others support or refute my impression, I bow to the wisdom of wikipedia contributors. Verification needed! Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

They aren’t actually bolts, they are electrodes, to which the wires from the lightning conductors are placed in the Universal movie, and are thus part of their make-up design and image for the Creature… Jock123 (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the film look

At least one author[*] claims that the now-iconic flat-headed look of Frankenstein's monster in the films is based on a Francisco Goya etching, Los Chinchillas (the seated/reclining figure; see this image). I don't find any mention of that in this or any of our related articles (or elsewhere online, for that matter), which credit Boris Karloff and Jack Pierce with inventing the look without mentioning Goya as its ultimate origin. Does anyone know if any other authors have mentioned this connection, either confirming it or else saying that the similarity is merely coincidental?

[*] Richard Davenport-Hines. Gothic: Four Hundred Years of Excess, Horror, Evil and Ruin. North Point Press, 1999, pp. 160-61.

--Delirium 03:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that it could also be mentioned that Charles Ogle had a built up head, which in photos looks to be bandaged, but this may just be the result of fabric being used in the building and attaching of the head-piece; this gives his head a squared profile too. I think Jack Pearce said that he’d taken a practical approach to the design, and reasoned that in opening the skull and inserting a different brain, Frankenstein would simply have taken a straight cut across the cranium, and this lead to the flat head. Jock123 (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable?

I notice that several examples of Frankenstein's Monster in other media I added were removed as "nonnotable." According to whom? "Weird Science" and "Frankenberry" are notable but "Dragonball" and "Castlevania" are not? That's remarkably illogical and highly POV. If we're going to have a section of pop culture references in this article, either include everything or nothing. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 13:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I didnt remove it, but "everything or nothing" is not the case, this is not meant to be a complete list but notable/important ones. If you want a complete list make a "List of.." article, there must be thousands. --Stbalbach 15:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Weird Science" and "Frankenberry" are notable but "Dragonball" and "Castlevania" are not? Yeah... And that's pretty obvious too if you think about it, as first two are long term memorable references directly related to the core nature of the reference (remove the Frankenstein reference from Frankenberry or WEird science and there's nothing left), while the two you mention are current references to flash in the pan popular items that haven't stood up to the test of time and don't use the figure very prominently at all (remove the Frankenstein reference and nobody would even notice, because it's not central). All or nothing on the listing of references is an absolutely ridiculous idea... that's not a recipe for an encyclopedia, it's a recipe for a fanlisting website. If you go to a real encyclopedia and look up Frankenstein, do you think they'd mention such trivial references? Absolutely not. It sounds like you need to get a basic grip on the concept of what an encylopedia is for. You can start by looking at WP:ENC, which is one of the more important policies here, written in a way that even fans of Dragonball and Castlevania should be able to understand. DreamGuy 16:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of notability: Thanks, User:Stbalbach, for suggesting that the USA Today citation is perhaps notable in the popular culture article. And completists should note Don Glut's The Frankenstein Catalog (Ann Radcliffe Award winner)[1][2]: http://www.donaldfglut.com/credits.html -- haven't checked to see if it's on the pop culture article yet. (And, no, I'm NOT suggesting taht all of the infor froom it go here -- I'm just ointing out that Glut and the book pass the notability test from having won an award.)

Other notes on the AR Award and the Count Dracula Society (for future refernces if anyone wants): [3] [4] Icarus 23 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a link to {http://www.donaldfglut.com/%7CDon's web site]. Icarus 23 17:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think DreamGuy's summary is pretty good, and it should be codified as policy for popular culture references of all kinds, especially in cases, such as this one, where there is no shortage of trivial mentions across media. In a nutshell, the reference ought to be such that it forms an integral part of the referrer, as is the case with Weird Science --Agamemnon2 11:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The demon?

It's been a LONG time since i've read the novel, but I seem to recall that Victor referred to him as "the demon" more than any other name. Am I just wrong here, or is it possible that these other names are being taken from the 1931 film and its sequels? --MateoP 17:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am currently reading the novel, and Shelley called the monster all of these things in the book. Thorns Among Our Leaves 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the book article but I recall on at least the on occasion on the glacier that he was refered to as the Destroyer. As in, It was the destroyer approaching. Though this may seem like referanced to thewretch and the fiend, both those seem to be descriptives while the Destroyer would appear to be a title earned by his actions. 63.138.247.2 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC) ken

Victor Frankenstein being saved by the ship

I don't remember Frankenstein's sled falling into the sea and being saved by the ship as this article states. As I remember it he disassembled part of the sled so as to float and row towards the ship. Could this be a difference between the two versions of the book (the 1818 and 1831 editions), or am I mistaken? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thepatriots (talk • contribs).

You are probably right, in the 1818 edition he does not fall into the ice, but breaks up his sled to build oars which to row his floating ice-raft over to the ship and safety. -- Stbalbach 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I think that a picture should be added of Frankenstein from Van Helsing. Son of Kong.

Name of the Monster

What name was the Monster given in the play by Peggy Webling?

Image on the page

I feel that a picture that portrays the creature's appearance as described in the book (such as the one from the 1831 edition) would be far more suiting for this page than that of Boris Karloff. The Karloff picture just doesn't seem suiting and it's already featured on the page for "Frankenstein in popular culture" anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.72.51 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Murderers listing

Shouldn't Frankenstein's monster also be listed under fictional murderers? In the story, he murders Frankenstein's brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.203.83 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion on "Species" below ... if it ain't human, then it ain't murder. 194.74.62.195 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Arabian?

I seem to remember that the "Arabian" Safie was actually Turkish. However, she is called an Arabian in the novel (by Felix), so would it be appropriate to correct this? Also, the De Laceys cannot really be called "peasants". --Kannan91 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am actually reading the book right now, and you are correct. Safie is Turkish. I'm not sure what I would do about the article, though. Good point. 99.142.41.183 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Safie is a Arabian, it's her father who's Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.228.186 (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Popular depiction.

It is a slap in the face of common sense to not include a single picture of the monster as it is most popularly imagined, as Boris Karloff with the flat head and neck bolts. This is obviously not how Mary Shelley described the creature, but it is demonstrably the most popular and enduring image. Oh, and I'd upload a picture myself but I fear some fanatic with too much free time would have me slaughtered on the altar of wiki-anal retentiveness for not getting posthumous written permission (signed in blood, ideally) from Karloff, James Whale, Mary Shelley, the publicity photographer who took the photo, his darkroom assistants, and then finding a New York Times article unambiguously stating that I did so, and ten other sources unambiguously stating that the New York Times is a notable source. Love always, Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

Species?

The infobox lists species as 'human (Gestalt entity).' I suppose you can draw this inference from the motion pictures, but in the novel of what and how he is made is unclear, and he is simply a 'monster.' Given the creature's eloquence, if he was 'human' wouldn't he have made that point himself? I'm deleting the 'species' section in the infobox. BoosterBronze (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically, he is a Zombie. He came to be living, composed out of dead parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.78.81 (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Then shouldn't he be included in the fictional undead category? 142.26.194.190 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The book never makes it clear exactly how the creature is assembled - the 'stitched together' idea is what the movies rolled with, but it's also possible to interpret it as being a homunculus instead. Which would make the issue of species far less clear. 194.74.62.195 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Zombies are animated by magic. Mr Monsterguy was animated by electricity and fiction. And I believe the novel actually refers to him as a homunculus, though I've also heard robot fiction enthusiasts describe him as a robot. Zombie/undead really doesn't seem quite right, though, as there is no magic involved. 73.218.186.141 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Name Associated with Monster: German Connection?

I always wondered why we associate the name "Frankenstein" with the monster -- and not its creator.

But it be that non-Germans of the time linked the threatening evil with their WWI enemies? The movie would've been released a little more than a decade after the conflict.

Any thoughts?

75.70.53.129 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is the true Monster?

Today you picture Frankenstein as an enormous man being zombie-like with bolts coming thought the skin of his neck and scaring the people of the villages close by. This in no way was what Mary Shelly was trying to portray. Victor Frankenstein is the creator, he never actually gives his creation a name, but creature. This creature then longs for a fulfilled life of normality that he can not have. Whereas his creator seeks for solitude in his studies, and lurks around corners. Leaving the question by Victor's actions who really is the true Monster.--63.163.137.199 (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Films

The is a film called Flesh For Frankenstein , or Andy Warhols Frankenstein that should be added to the list. produced in the early 1970s I think Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Creature's name

Although this topic is touched upon in the lead, I think a section discussing the creature's name, and the different names applied to him, is justified. I have started the section by giving an example in which the monster is actually named Frankenstein (the Van Helsing movie of 2004). But there are also films in which he's called Victor and other names, so the section can easily be expanded with sources given. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The basis for several other fictional characters

"This image has been used as the basis for several other fictional characters." says the article & links to the Hulk. That's one, not several. How about Lurch & Herman Munster? JIMp _talk·cont 15:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankenstein's Monster being Green

Should it not be mentioned somewhere that Frankenstein's monster is often portrayed as green? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.64.192 (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is, it should probably be pointed out that this may be a misinterpretation of the Jack Pearce make-up, which was coloured green so that it would show up as a pallid grey in black-and-white; had a grey or white been used, it could have flared under the studio lighting (this was not uncommon, the same “trick” being used to make the console in early Doctor Who appear grey/ white, and even the Enterprise models on the original Star Trek were pale green to show white on colour film-stock). Jock123 (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Template for Frankenstein's Monster

The title of that template to the side says "poo heads" and I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. It's ridiculous. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I could see that too, even though the page's history said that ClueBot had reverted the vandalism just one minute after it took place. I clicked "Edit" and "Save page" without changing anything, and now the page is correctly displaying "Frankenstein's Monster". It seems like we encountered a glitch of some sort, but whatever it was, it's taken care of for the time being. —Flax5 21:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed hatnote to broaden results

I changed the hatnote to point to Frankenstein (disambiguation) instead of Frankenstein's Monster (Marvel Comics). While the Marvel Comics character is notable, it is hardly the only interpretation of the character in comics, let alone other media. The Frankenstein dab page contains links to all Frankenstein articles in one place. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 02:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

“The novel and film versions portrayed him as intelligent and literate”

This seems to be like a fairly sweeping statement, when so many dramatic versions of the story (including the Universal one in 1931) make the Creature inarticulate, of limited intelligence (and presumably illiterate), in contrast to Shelley’s intelligent creation. So ingrained in the public perception of the monster is the sub-normal mental capacity, that it makes for a wealth of material in Mel Brookes’s Young Frankenstein, including Peter Boyle’s majestic recitation of a passage from the novel once he has undergone further surgery late in the movie, and intelligence has been restored. Likewise, Frankenstein, the True Story was able to use the intelligence of their Creature as a distinct selling point to distance it from other productions. So some films show him as intelligent and literate, but many (the majority?) do not. Jock123 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)