So, UNFORTUNATELY, I haven't seen many of the classic monster movies. I've seen the original Frankenstein and that's about it. (And Young Frankenstein, because it's AWESOME and required viewing in my household.) One of these days, I will get to the original Dracula.
And I completely agree with you both on Van Helsing- it's just such a fun movie that while the problems are numerous and bothersome, it's a movie that you have to shut your brain off while watching it. And David Wenham is involved. Which, you know, is always good.
It's interesting that you bring up the fact that the film seems to set up for a sequel and there wasn't one, buuut there's an animated prequel dealing with the Mr. Hyde case that opens the film. I haven't seen it, but I've heard okay things about it.
I have yet to watch a single film version of either Frankenstein or Dracula, mainly because I wanted to read the books first. Which I've finally done in the last year. What strikes me most about Frankenstein is how the Universal film seems to set up the trope followed by all other adaptations in terms of having the creature assembled from corpses. That's not how it is in the book. There, the doc uses alchemical techniques to build the individual tissues cultures, which are then woven together into a creature make entirely from scratch. I'm surprised how overlooked that aspect is, instead focusing on the grue of the grave-robbing.
About The Wolfman, that wasn't where it started. It began with Werewolf of London, a mostly overlooked Universal Monster film from six years earlier. And if you want a literary connection, both were inspired by The Werewolf of Paris, a popular novel at the time that Universal didn't want to buy the rights to.
Haven't seen Van Helsing. Love The Mummy. Don't love The Mummy Returns.
I didn't actually know about the prequel regarding Mr. Hyde. I'd wondered about it though because the character seems like a waste of Robby Coltrane, who does a really great job with the voice in my opinion.
Noel- Doctor Frankenstein did collect dead tissue and bone for his purposes, just not in the same... wholesale way it's often presented in films. I'm not surprised they changed it, because stealing a body from a grave and slapping it on the slab is less complicated than trying to explain how he was created. Unless handled exceedingly well, it would slow the movie down.
Are you sure? I read the novel just a few months ago and, while it is very vague about the process, I remember it clearly saying he created the materials using alchemy and chemistry. Especially when he goes out to an isolated island to build the Bride, where he wouldn't have any way to gather such material.
Granted, I might have missed something. I actually thought it was a really poorly written book and did glaze over a few parts. :)
"I collected bones from charnel houses; and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame. In a solitary chamber, or rather cell, at the top of the house, and separated from all the other apartments by a gallery and staircase, I kept my workshop of filthy creation: my eye-balls were starting from their sockets in attending to the details of my employment. The dissecting room and the slaughterhouse furnished many of my materials; and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation, whilst, still urged on by an eagerness which perpetually increased, I brought my work near to a conclusion." Found this near the end of Chapter 4
It's not the best written of books, I glazed over at bits and pieces of it as well. Reading it for school didn't help. If you ever get a chance, pick up Danse Macabre by Stephen King. I think it's probably out of print but you can find it in used bookstores a lot. He talks about the horror genre in general and the big monsters specifically, and he addresses why Shelley's book became so popular even though it wasn't particularly well-written. I don't remember what he says off the top of my head because I can't find the book (it's probably under the bed) but it's worth a read if you can find it.
Lord, how did I forget the slaughterhouse reference. Bethany, I stand corrected.
Frankenstein is an interesting book, but very unfocussed and choppy, and I couldn't relate to anyone. The creature was an asshole. Frankenstein was an asshole. It was like a drawn out bit of road rage. This is a little unfair to the book, but I think I was also let down because I'd read Dracula a short time before and found that novel quite impressive and clever.
I do have a copy of Danse Macabre. Read it about a decade ago. Should dig it out for a fresh look.
See, I generally like Frankenstein the novel (save for the monster's "Oh, hey, this is how I got educated"; that got weird), but I need to go and give Dracula another reread. After Jonathan goes back to England, I started losing interest.
Danse Macabre is a fantastic book. I know it got rereleased in the last two years with an updated foreword about horror in between 1980-2008, but I haven't taken a good look at it.
I really need to re-read them both, other than looking up the quote I haven't read Frankenstein since my junior or senior year of high school, and I think I read Dracula when I was... 15? I don't remember much about reading it but I know we have a copy and you can get a free copy if you download the Kindle software, so it's in the plans.
That is really great news, that was a great book. I will have to find the re-released version so I can read the foreword. And replace my copy which appears to have been eaten by the elder god living under my bed.
Directed here via Made of Fail.
ReplyDeleteSo, UNFORTUNATELY, I haven't seen many of the classic monster movies. I've seen the original Frankenstein and that's about it. (And Young Frankenstein, because it's AWESOME and required viewing in my household.) One of these days, I will get to the original Dracula.
And I completely agree with you both on Van Helsing- it's just such a fun movie that while the problems are numerous and bothersome, it's a movie that you have to shut your brain off while watching it. And David Wenham is involved. Which, you know, is always good.
It's interesting that you bring up the fact that the film seems to set up for a sequel and there wasn't one, buuut there's an animated prequel dealing with the Mr. Hyde case that opens the film. I haven't seen it, but I've heard okay things about it.
Great show, and I can't wait to hear what's next.
Yay for more Van Helsing fans!
ReplyDeleteI feel like I watched the Mr. Hyde prequel back when it first came out, but remember nothing about it. I need to hunt it down and watch it again.
Thanks! I hope we don't let you down. :)
I have yet to watch a single film version of either Frankenstein or Dracula, mainly because I wanted to read the books first. Which I've finally done in the last year. What strikes me most about Frankenstein is how the Universal film seems to set up the trope followed by all other adaptations in terms of having the creature assembled from corpses. That's not how it is in the book. There, the doc uses alchemical techniques to build the individual tissues cultures, which are then woven together into a creature make entirely from scratch. I'm surprised how overlooked that aspect is, instead focusing on the grue of the grave-robbing.
ReplyDeleteAbout The Wolfman, that wasn't where it started. It began with Werewolf of London, a mostly overlooked Universal Monster film from six years earlier. And if you want a literary connection, both were inspired by The Werewolf of Paris, a popular novel at the time that Universal didn't want to buy the rights to.
Haven't seen Van Helsing. Love The Mummy. Don't love The Mummy Returns.
Now I really, really need to read Frankenstein again. I didn't remember that about him creating the tissue from scratch at all.
ReplyDeleteI also keep meaning to catch Werewolf of London and haven't yet. It's easy to overlook it since everyone seems to remember The Wolf Man instead.
Lots of numbers-
ReplyDeleteThanks for giving us a chance!
I didn't actually know about the prequel regarding Mr. Hyde. I'd wondered about it though because the character seems like a waste of Robby Coltrane, who does a really great job with the voice in my opinion.
Noel-
Doctor Frankenstein did collect dead tissue and bone for his purposes, just not in the same... wholesale way it's often presented in films. I'm not surprised they changed it, because stealing a body from a grave and slapping it on the slab is less complicated than trying to explain how he was created. Unless handled exceedingly well, it would slow the movie down.
Are you sure? I read the novel just a few months ago and, while it is very vague about the process, I remember it clearly saying he created the materials using alchemy and chemistry. Especially when he goes out to an isolated island to build the Bride, where he wouldn't have any way to gather such material.
ReplyDeleteGranted, I might have missed something. I actually thought it was a really poorly written book and did glaze over a few parts. :)
"I collected bones from charnel houses; and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame. In a solitary chamber, or rather cell, at the top of the house, and separated from all the other apartments by a gallery and staircase, I kept my workshop of filthy creation: my eye-balls were starting from their sockets in attending to the details of my employment. The dissecting room and the slaughterhouse furnished many of my materials; and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation, whilst, still urged on by an eagerness which perpetually increased, I brought my work near to a conclusion." Found this near the end of Chapter 4
ReplyDeleteIt's not the best written of books, I glazed over at bits and pieces of it as well. Reading it for school didn't help. If you ever get a chance, pick up Danse Macabre by Stephen King. I think it's probably out of print but you can find it in used bookstores a lot. He talks about the horror genre in general and the big monsters specifically, and he addresses why Shelley's book became so popular even though it wasn't particularly well-written. I don't remember what he says off the top of my head because I can't find the book (it's probably under the bed) but it's worth a read if you can find it.
Lord, how did I forget the slaughterhouse reference. Bethany, I stand corrected.
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein is an interesting book, but very unfocussed and choppy, and I couldn't relate to anyone. The creature was an asshole. Frankenstein was an asshole. It was like a drawn out bit of road rage. This is a little unfair to the book, but I think I was also let down because I'd read Dracula a short time before and found that novel quite impressive and clever.
I do have a copy of Danse Macabre. Read it about a decade ago. Should dig it out for a fresh look.
See, I generally like Frankenstein the novel (save for the monster's "Oh, hey, this is how I got educated"; that got weird), but I need to go and give Dracula another reread. After Jonathan goes back to England, I started losing interest.
ReplyDeleteDanse Macabre is a fantastic book. I know it got rereleased in the last two years with an updated foreword about horror in between 1980-2008, but I haven't taken a good look at it.
I really need to re-read them both, other than looking up the quote I haven't read Frankenstein since my junior or senior year of high school, and I think I read Dracula when I was... 15? I don't remember much about reading it but I know we have a copy and you can get a free copy if you download the Kindle software, so it's in the plans.
ReplyDeleteThat is really great news, that was a great book. I will have to find the re-released version so I can read the foreword. And replace my copy which appears to have been eaten by the elder god living under my bed.