Talk:Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Japan: Cinema Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 09:38, November 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the joint Japanese cinema task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disengage

Leave me alone. In August 2016 someone said something, gave their opinion regarding this article. There has been no debate to the validity of said info. I suggest the information is erroneous. It is not overly detailed. Bleucheeses (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Has been praised by none"

Who? Andrew Levine 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pics of Helena Bonham Carter

Where I can find photos of Helena Bonham Carter in this film? David Pro (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faithfulness to novel

I don't agree that this film is faithful to the novel. In fact, it takes considerable liberties. The claim of faithfulness was surely part of the publicity, but those of us who read the novel know that it simply isn't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was more faithful than other adaptions such as the Boris Karloff series. Emperor001 (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hinson says so; and that is all Hinson says. That is not the sentence Emperor is defending. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from the reference (Hinson's film review) allegedly supporting the claim that this film was somehow true to the book:

"At the crucial moment when the doctor utters the famous words “It’s alive!” in “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,” he’s certainly not talking about the movie. All too faithfully adapted by Kenneth Branagh, the film is the last thing that one would expect of a contemporary highbrow version of this ageless horror classic. It is, in a word, dullsville.

"Perhaps wisely, Branagh has chosen to avoid any reference to the memorable Boris Karloff “Frankenstein,” but he hasn’t come up with a vivid counterpart for it either."

What nonsense! The line "It's alive!" is itself clearly a reference to the Karloff film. Nothing like that line occurs in the book. In fact, the whole "animation of the Creature" scene is completely absent from the book. It's a film invention, and the Branagh/DeNiro film follows form. The creation of the Bride of Frankenstein is also absent from the book, but it's a staple of film versions.

The notion that this film is faithful to Shelley's novel is pure marketing hype, and the authors of the Wikipedia article, like the flocks of sheepish moviegoers and reviewers, swallowed the marketing hype. Apparently, it's easy to fall for such nonsense if you haven't read the book. 139.68.134.1 (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mary shelleys frankenstein ver2.jpg

Image:Mary shelleys frankenstein ver2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Why is the article at Mary Shelley's Frankenstein instead of Frankenstein (1994 film)? All of the James Bond films were introduced as either Ian Fleming's name of film or Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in name of film, but their articles are simply at Name of Film. Emperor001 (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a move to Frankenstein (1994 film), if someone makes a formal proposal. --GHcool (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I propose that this article be moved to Frankenstein (1994 film). Emperor001 (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Move

I propose that this article be moved to Frankenstein (1994 film). For my reasoning, see above discussion. Emperor001 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support because this proposal matches IMDb title. --GHcool (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rating information

I'm removing the sentence "It received an R rating for horrific images and sexual content." from the introduction as it isn't really relevant to the article - if people want its classification they can go to the iMDB or any other classifications site. David Pro (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novel vs Film

I have amended several errors in the section which compares the book to the film; the original author of these bullet points has signalled divergences where none exist (the Creature's murder of William is CLEARLY motivated in the book by the knowledge of his relationship to the Frankenstein family, as among his taunts is the familiar "do you know who my father is?" of all spoilt children, and the creature proceeds to rhapsodize about how hateful this name is to him. In both film and book, then, his desire to silence the child is inextricably bound up with the murder - BOTH works blur the line between murder and manslaughter here). I have also removed references to Victor's "returning" to England to make the "companion" - he says explicitly that he has never been there before, and has only travelled there because he needs to confer with several experts in his field before embarking on a second creature. I have also removed the strange notion that the monster somehow "mistakenly" kills Elizabeth - Shelley, the narrating Victor, AND the gleefully mocking Monster are all fairly clear that this had always been his intention. Generally these bullet points, while VERY useful, seem to have been SLIGHTLY skewed by a desire to make the novel-creature seem more sympathetic (accidentally killing William, accidentally killing Elizabeth) which is not, I am afraid, consistent with the original novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.130.38 (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Somewhat ambivalent on this; part of me thinks that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein should be a primary redirect to Shelley's novel, but of the three entries on the dab page the 1994 film is clearly primary over the pinball machine and video game it inspired. See also pageview stats for usage. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as the book is primary so the title shouldn't go to the film alone. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Randy Kryn: And on the second move (for the dab page)? PC78 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It already goes to the dab, which seems fine as long as the first "above the fold" item remains the book. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the novel is the primary topic then logically it should redirect there. On the other hand, the novel is well-linked from the lead and infobox of the film. Either way, I see little advantage in maintaining the status quo. PC78 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. No primary topic for this term. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't want to create some kind of monster. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If anything is primary it's the novel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.