#to be the best Frankenstein adaptation i've seen

[ennaih]

Every Film I Watch In 2023:

270. The Bride (1985)

[tyrantisterror]

You've stated that you’ve found every Dracula adaptation EXCEPT Netflix’s Castlevania to a pale imitation of Bram Stoker’s original novel. Why then do you have a soft spot for Legosi’s Dracula? Are there any other unfaithful adaptations of Dracula you feel particularly affectionate towards?

...I don't think that's quite what I've stated, actually. While I think almost every adaptation of Dracula I've seen/listened to/read has altered and cut a lot of the things I love about the book they're supposedly based on, often to the point of being unrecgonizable, I don't think that means they have no merit as stories of their own. Like, an adaptation can be unfaithful to the source material and still be a good story in its own right. And you can be disappointed that an adaptation took so many divergences from the source material while still liking the end product.

I have affection for the vast majority of Dracula adaptations I've seen. The Hammer Dracula movies are some of my favorites - they're really what people are adapting when they turn Van Helsing into Dracula's nemesis, and Peter Cushing's take on Van Helsing is, while not quite true to his literary counterpart, absolutely iconic. He's like the Sherlock Holmes or MacGuyver of vampire slaying, constantly improvising new methods of fending off and fighting vampires.

Or, like, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, which is one of the first and absolute best horror comedies ever made, and marked the only time Bela Lugosi returned to play Dracula. It has almost nothing in common with the book by Bram Stoker, taking just the concept of Count Dracula and inserting him into this farce where he tries to make the Frankenstein monster his minion by giving it Lou Costello's brain. Not a "faithful" adaptation, but the world would be worse without it.

Almost every adaptation of Dracula takes every character from the book who isn't named "Dracula" or "Van Helsing" and either drains them of personality so they're no longer recognizable, or cuts them altogether, and I will always find that disappointing as a fan of the book. But those adaptations often have other things going on that compensate for it and make them good or at least interesting stories in their own right. Do I wish more adaptations were faithful to the book? Yeah, because the characters in the book are excellent and deserve to be known just as well as the Count himself. But that doesn't mean the adaptations that gut them don't have their own charms.

[paragonrobits]

i randomly was looking up Girl Genius bits out of context and saw a bit of Adam/Punch after he meets up again with Agatha following the time skip and 1. I love this guy, he's smart and cool and a huge patchwork monster, but I already knew that

2. for a while I've had this vague idea that the in-universe depiction of him as a comedic doofus contrasting that he was ACTUALLY a highly intelligent and sensitive person that people considered simple-minded because he was mute (and that he HATED this) is a commentary on how many adaptations of Frankenstein rarely depict the Monster as he was in the novel: a very smart and sensitive person, at least at his best days. and this would seem to confirm it because I noticed that the SPECIFIC cadence of his speech once he shows up with his voice repaired, along with word choice, is uncannily similar to the way the Creature himself speaks in Frankenstein. (Dimo commenting that getting him to shut up is actually the hard part could be seen as a cheeky commentary on how the Creature is... WORDY, to put it politely.)

[saintmachina]

trying to encourage my budding love of gothic well everything so far i’ve seen a few things like the movie rebecca (1940) and i’ve read the phantom of the opera , carmilla, and frankenstein but i’d like to read and watch more (even music if it’s out there?) and so i am shamelessly asking for any and all recommendations you have classic/modern/romance/horror i’ll take it all (i don’t know if much of it is queer but ill take queer recs as well if they exist)

thank you i’m a big fan of your work

I'll take any opportunity at all to yell about UNDER THE PENDULUM SUN by Jeanette Ng! This is a Capital G gothic with all the twists and trappings that still surprises, delights, and unsettles. The book followers a young Victorian woman on her quest to find her missionary brother, who has disappeared into faeryland for his own shadowy reasons, and about the secrets and the fey queen who torment them both. It runs CIRCLES around any other book that has every tried to do theology and faeries at the same time, and the prose is lovely and the suspense is tight. Crimson Peak enjoyers, this is for you in more ways than one. (I will go ahead and say tw: incest here but it's more complicated than you think and hey, it's a Gothic tragedy, what did you expect?)

Other than that, if you want to watch a TRULY WILD but enjoyable film, try Gothic! It's a 1986 film about Mary Shelley and the gang cooking up stories (and drama, and infidelity, and drug-induced hallucinations, and ghosts) during the infamous year without a summer. Also you must, you MUST watch AMC's Interview With The Vampire television series. It is hands down the best vampire story I've ever seen on screen, pitch-perfect down to the writing, acting, staging, and storytelling devises. That adaptation is thoroughly and unapologetically queer.

You've already read some of the ultimate classics, but have you tried Wuthering Heights? It's a bit of a slow start but UGH, what a family saga, what a moody atmosphere, what a brutally eternal love! It's one of my forever favorites.

Enjoy!

[suddenly-frankenstein]

Hello! Fellow Frankenstein freak here! I have to ask, what's your favorite Frankenstein movie you've seen? Not necessarily the best one, but your favorite one. I made myself watch about 25 last year for reasons (that's as many as I could watch in one week for free, dating from 1910 to the early 2000s) and they're all so bizarre. I love talking about them so much, I love watching peoples faces when I tell them that one time Sting played Frankenstein, and in that same movie The Creature and his buddy are targeted by the Circus Mafia. Or how at least one version of Victor Frankenstein has an alligator pit. Or how Kenneth Branagh made Robert De Niro be birthed out of instapot and then they spend like 30 seconds slipping in Mysterious Science Goop before the plot continues.

TLDR; I don't know anyone else who is as obsessed with this stuff as I am and would love to hear your thoughts lmao

damn, my biggest problem is that I've watched so many of them few years ago, that I mostly don't remember anything :")

but I definitely have some that I still think about constantly!! maybe the first one and the most special in my eyes is "Frankenstein: The True Story" (1973), because in this movie Victor REALLY cared about the Creature and TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY. he taught him things, he spent time with him – and when the Creature started to decay and lose temper, yeah, he decided to lock him, but Victor was going to lock himself as well so the Creature wouldn't be dying alone. and they even had a hug!! (still everything ended up terribly, but it was interesting to see this responsible version of Victor, not canonical book version, but also not usual movie mad scientist either).

well, speaking of classics and mad scientists – I love first two movies of UNIVERSAL's franchise, rewatch them from time to time. And within the Hammer's franchise I like the third (if I remember right) movie – "The Evil of Frankenstein", even though it mostly is called the worst of them all lmao. I just think it was funny and not annoying like the other. and I also LOVE the first several minutes of the first movie – "The Curse of Frankenstein" with the young Victor played by Melvyn Hayes, because OH HE WAS DEFINITELY SERVING. for me this young Victor was the closest to the book from all of the versions of him.

(I even did a funny edit of him once, here, lmao)

the most controversial version but I can't NOT TO THINK ABOUT IT – it's "Flesh for Frankenstein" of course (not even speaking about the plot, but god how I hate color correction in most of the 70's movies, these colors usually make me sick almost physically).

but well, uh, how the hell I was surprised when Udo Kier's Frankenstein turned out to look SO DAMN CLOSE to like I always draw him (I mean just give him another nose shape and he will look exactly how I imagine Victor) :") just hello??? DAMN

also want to mention "Terror of Frankenstein" (1977) movie, because they have an interesting design of the Creature here (finally black lips yaaay!) and sweet sweet Clerval (I hate that most of the movies are throwing him and Justine out of the plot :(( )

AND ALSO!! not movies, but I LOVE LOVE LOVE these adaptations – Frankenstein: the Metal Opera, 2014 (you can find its official record for free on youtube) and Frankenstein, the Royal Ballet, 2017!! I, personally, enjoyed them both very much

well, these ones are some of the movies I think the most about, I guess :")

really thank you for your question!!

[regicidal-defenestration]

fRankenstein Tier List 2.0

Featuring all the adaptations, reimaginings, and "inspired by"s that's I've experienced so far and remembered about. Rankings are based on faithfulness to the original text, how much I enjoyed them, and my own capricious wills

Described and explained below the cut:

(F)rankenstein Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818 book) by Mary Shelley Arguably the best adaptation of any source material is the original thing itself, but I'm not a philosopher

It's (A)live!!!! Frankenstein from the Royal Ballet Follows the source material possibly too closely, leading to a dull first act, but more than makes up for it with an Insane finale. Steven McRae as the Creature was phenomenal

Young Frankenstein (1974 film) Fun film and really good parody. They gave Frankenstein bottom surgery

Frankenstein (2015 album) by the Mechanisms Banger lyrics great song I love it when two characters are trapped in a spiral of their own making

(B)ack from the grave The Monsters We Deserve (2018 book) by Marcus Sedgewick Read it in one sitting and it thoroughly rattled my brain. Takes both the plot and the physical book Frankenstein and makes it about the responsibilities (or lack thereof) of creation

Lisa Frankenstein (2024 film) 52% on Rotten Tomatoes because nobody understands camp. It's fun it's gothic it's romantic I cannot recommend it enough. Honestly the only reason it's not higher is that I have to at least pretend to think about how these follow the original book

(C) what's on the slab Rock Horrors both stage (1973) and screen (1975), as well as Re-Animator (1985 film) and Bride of Re-Animator (1990) Very much not adaptations but undeniably heavily influenced by. I'll call them both fun*, note the asterisk, if you've seen either you know the parts I refer to in each

Secret Abilities and the Diary of a Teenage Frankenstein (2018 album) by, funnily enough, Secret Abilities Not convinced anyone in this band can carry a tune but that's neither here nor there. I really liked the idea of a choose-your-own-adventure album and their songs are fun! SNITCHES GET STITCHES is a delightful song about loving someone so much you'd sew yourself together with them to never be parted.

Young Frankenstein (2007 musical) Not necessarily a good musical, nevertheless a fantastic night out to watch it

Un(D)ead Frankenstein (1931 film) Look okay okay I know how influential it is I know it's rich me, renowned bad taste haver, putting it so low, but in adaptation terms it's not good and in film enjoyment terms I didn't. They fucked up the Creature's legacy :(

Poor Things (1992 book) by Alasdair Gray I feel a bit bad putting this so low, because on a technical level it is very well done, I just feel entirely middling towards it

?, ? Frankissstein: A Love Story (2019 book) by Jeanette Winterson. Still haven't re-read it, still don't remember anything about it. Storygraph assures me I gave it 3 stars on 1 October 2019, which could _frank_ly (ha!) mean anything

[witchofthemidlands]

this is, first & foremost an apology to my followers, especially my mutuals who are about to witness a woman's descent into madness: i discovered penny dreadful, i will never know peace again, i'm 6 episodes in, i may do something that will land me on the news

i studied, for my degree, i studied gothic literature for THREE YEARS, THREE YEARS, i studied my second favourite book on the world, dracula, jekyll & hyde & frankenstein. a core part of my degree was on adaptations of dracula, jekyll & hyde & frankenstein BUT I NEVER CAME ACROSS THIS SHOW UNTIL NOW 😭 my parents had this show on dvd (which is how i have been able to watch it because it did cross my radar a few months ago when i saw gifs of billie piper's character) MY PARENTS HAD THIS SHOW ON DVD SINCE IT CAME OUT & THEY NEVER SAID, they watched me, they watched me struggle through analysing one of the WORST dracula adaptations i have ever seen just so i had another adaptation of the character to analyse to add to the 4 other adaptations i had to write about at the time & i will now never forgive them because they never thought to mention THIS MASTERPIECE 😭😩😭 i haven't seen their version of the count of dr. jekyll & mr. hyde yet, i'm only 6 episodes in BUT I HAVE SEEN MINA! I HAVE SEEN VANESSA (not to be a lesbian but oh my god oh my god 🥵😍🥵 please destroy me with your witchy aura & step on my neck, can i be dorian gray 😳) who to me feels like a mix of the mina from the novel & lucy westenra & I HAVE SEEN FRANKENSTEIN & HIS CREATURE & this has to be the BEST version of victor frankenstein i have ever seen in all my years of loving that book, studying that book & going through as many adaptations as i can find. that man IS victor frankenstein, he is pathetic, he is ✨dramatic✨ he IS the character i have loved & loathed for all these years since i was young & discovered that book. i know. i know in my SOUL that penny dreadful will do jekyll & hyde & my dear count dracula justice if they are as much a masterpiece as penny dreadful’s version of frankenstein is. this show has everything for me, it is gothic, it has billie piper as the lovely brona, eva green as vanessa ives: one of the most beautiful characters i have ever laid eyes on, it focus on elements of dracula, my second favourite book in the world & it DOES IT WELL!! it's the best version of frankenstein i have ever seen, the creature is frankenstein's creation & also reminiscent of the phantom of the opera in the most masterful way, the guy who sang the epics on hadestown has somehow got me liking dorian gray, despite the fact that i have never liked that story, the somewhat irritating american man is probably a werewolf & if he’s not i'm still going to think he's somehow a werewolf, i don't think i will ever like a timothy dalton character but i have got to appreciate how this is pretty much the exact same character as his character in doom patrol what with the dysfunctional found family of misfits, the mentally ill, the probably powered individuals & the ✨old man angst✨. the scripts are incredible, the aesthetics are sublime, i can't believe i've only come across this masterpiece now 😭

[the-goya-jerker]

What are your favorite movies? Any recommendations?

ALWAYS.

I love film. I love TV shows. I love to watch things.

I'll try to group these up. But they're below a cut because this will get long.

Oh, also, I recommend checking out the Does the Dog Die and/or Unconsenting Media page for movies on here. These check for common triggers for the first, and specific sexual content in the second. Both are quite thorough, and Unconsenting Media always needs more contributers.

Please, if you have triggers of any kind, curate your experiences, advocate for yourself. These sites can really help you.

If you like straight up horror:

The VVitch is an absolute favorite, I'm an absolute sucker for historical accuracy.

The Sudbury Devil is of a similar vein. It's weird! Don't get me wrong! The quality isn't the best, but I did like it!

St. Maud is another one, very religious and very creative.

I like the original Wickerman, but I don't really see it as horror... That guy was a dick and a cop.

The Wind is fun, I didn't like the ending much, but I'm really into atmospheric horror. There's a fun game based on it. (Even if I find the creator's other works a little... suspicious, ideologically.)

Bride of Reanimator has a special place in my heart.

V/H/S '94 is a recent watch of mine. Not every piece in it is good, and the framing device is weak, but I liked it for what it was nevertheless. Big youtube short films/ARG vibes.

Go watch Portrait of God on youtube. It's scary, eerie, and it made my stomach churn a bit.

Crimson Peak is also very very good. Very gothic, but I'm grouping it here for how violence is presented.

If you like things with horror elements that are more gothic than straight up horror:

Interview with the Vampire is a big favorite of mine. I love the books, the show, and especially the movie.

Donnie Darko is fun, very philosophical, a little weird, but I've loved it since I was young.

Ex Machina is interesting to me, I find it enjoyable, even though I have criticisms of how it handles some things.

The Tragedy of Macbeth is lovely. It captures the feeling of a stage play while also using the unique capabilities of film to propel itself into something uniquely good.

The Green Knight on the other hand is not a faithful adaptation. But it has something new to say and do, and I love what it does.

Poor Things deserves every big of hype it gets. If you haven't seen it, it's Frankenstein but with delightfully surreal worldbuilding. The world feels like a painting. Also it's very good as a feminist piece, in my opinion. If a bit singular.

The Love Witch is beautiful, and fascinating to me. I have a special fascination with wicca and neo-pagan movements though, as well as witchcraft and folk-magic.

For things entirely unrelated to horror:

Hedwig and the Angry Inch restructured my brain.

Technically HBO's Angels in America is a mini-series. Watch it like a movie if you can though. I watched it that way for a film class and it's closer to the original play that way.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is a very fun spy romp. Listen, just watch it and turn off your brain.

The John Wick movies, while "basic" are a beautiful ballet of violence and action. I do like the mythological elements as well.

The Harder They Fall fucks severely. It's a western centered on an entirely black main cast.

Mama Mia, need I say more.

I do not consider Renfield horror, but god if it isn't fun.

Dungeons and Dragons, sometimes you need a good, well made, movie that's kinda a little stupid.

Barbie Princess and the Pauper isn't good, but I like it.

Spider-verse. Like the whole series. I have a special attachment to these. They're utterly beautiful.

Cats. Is it good? NO!! But you should watch it anyway. Let the awful CGI melt into your brain, let it consume you and just watch. (Someone wants me to say you should watch the movie of the stage production instead)

Watch The Invitation. Go in blind. I'm begging you. Just give it a shot. Don't look up anything.

[melonteee]

I'm really enjoying the live-action show. It's different, but I think some changes are improvements, some changes are neutral, and some changes are for the worse. Overall, I'd say it's about as good of an adaptation as the East Blue anime is (factoring in the changes the anime made).

Syrup Village is a great example, they cut Jango (though you do see his Bounty poster, so he still exists in canon), but they also made Kaya's illness be the result of Butchie poisoning her and part of Kuro's plan. Luffy drinks the poison soup and that replaces the scene of him unconscious from hypnosis. Zoro has to climb out of a well, and that replaces him climbing up an oil-covered hill and also sets up for Mihawk saying he's a frog in a well. They also change the setting for the battle from a beach to inside the mansion, introducing a horror theme to the story which rachets up the tension a lot more. Sham is also gender-bent and super cute.

And it's not wrong to say the showrunners understand and love the characters and the world. All of the bottles of alcohol are brands in One Piece, the barrel Luffy gets into has the name of the fishmonger from his village, Garp mentions that he's turned down multiple promotions, Nami reads Noland the Liar to Zoro while he's unconscious after his fight with Mihawk, Arlong introduces Fishman discrimination.

I think it's best experienced from the perspective of "it's going to be different, and that's okay". The characters are written a little differently, but not in a bad way. They still feel like the characters at their core, Inaki's Luffy and Taz's Sanji are two stand-outs, they're fantastic.

I understand if it's just not for you, and you did watch one episode, so I can't say you didn't give it a chance at all. I just feel like you and the others are being too harsh on it. It's way better than any other live-action anime adaptation I've ever seen.

I appreciate this anon and I do think the poison change works, but there's certainly a 1 good thing for 9 bad things ratio going on. Because in all fairness, I am going to be extremely critical of a 20 year old series that's making an adaptation with a 17 million dollar budget per episode - especially from Netflix. If I'm being approached by friends who were actually excited for this series and they came out of it disappointed, somehow I don't think I'm gonna have a good time myself. I'm watching One Piece for One Piece, I don't think I should go into an adaptation thinking this is gonna be different in STORY and CHARACTER. I can accept changes for medium, of course, but there are so many absolutely bizarre changes that literally do nothing. You don't go from the manga to the anime and think "Well if I just disconnect these characters from their original selves, I can soak this in fine" because in all honesty, that probably means it's a bad adaptation if you need to work to see what you want to see.

Also the 'frog in the well' thing is exactly my point of this script just slamming you in the face with what it's trying to do, we are not meant to take that literally. The well is the east blue that Zoro lives in, not a literal well lmao. It's a nice cheeky idea to have, but the goofiness of Zoro's character is removed from the scene where he's trying to run up a greased hill like an idiot. Because yes, even THAT scene served a purpose for Zoro's character and how we view him. It's definitely subjective to say the characters are written differently but not in a bad way, because ripping away parts of a character to leave them as this Frankenstein version of themselves is personally not something I want? Why would I WANT all the goofiness and stupidness taken out of Zoro? It might be good for some, but it just feels like a total downgrade and misunderstanding of his character to me. Same goes for Sanji just being this artsy guy who's complaining cause he can't make the dishes he wants, with his over dramatic, angry, violent flare completely gone. Those changes being good or bad are completely up to you, but I am personally just made to see a hollowed out, dumbed down version of them because I liked these characters as I originally met them and that's what made them stand out.

I appreciate the time they put into the sets, I do think the visual world was made well (although it could've used a bit more style), but the little physical details mean absolutely nothing if I can't even FEEL the magic the original gave me. A set does not make a series, 1000 strawhats will not make me see Luffy unless he is written to be Luffy, and that's the problem. I don't want to watch an adaptation that removes the most emotional and impactful moments of my favourite character just to replace it with a fight or to focus on ANOTHER character they've deemed more important. I am going to be critical because these characters mean a lot to me, and I am expecting to feel from an adaptation what I felt from the original with such characters. An adaptation does not mean making things different just for differences sake. I am glad you enjoyed it anon, as many people have, but if I'm watching something that's literally called One Piece and have been told this is an adaptation of One Piece - with the producers even saying they want to put the manga on the screen, mind you - I am going to go in there expecting One Piece, from the characters to the story. I shouldn't have to do the work in my own head and go "Well, they did their best!", especially at a million dollar Netflix production...sigh

[dross-the-fish]

Ok, I know what you think if Phantom, Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde the musicals but how do you feel about the Dracula musical?

It's not my favorite. Now, granted, I've only seen the German proshot with Thomas Borchert in the titular role, so if the English language version is different I don't know, but as much as I enjoyed some of the songs I cannot with adaptations that feature Dracula x Mina. I cannot, I may not like when adaptations of phantom favor or ship Erik x Christine but I can see why other people do and in the hands of competent writers it has its potential.

Dracula x Mina does not, that is a change that fundamentally breaks the story and both characters. It de-fangs Dracula in a way that is not an improvement and makes his actions towards Lucy and Johnathan seem bizarrely dissonant for a character that is old, tired and in love whenever he's around Mina. It also obliterates Mina's resolve and undermines her fear and her tragedy. This monster killed her best friend and terrorized her husband, Dracula took so much from her, how am I supposed to buy that she doesn't hate him with every fiber of her being? Much like most of Frank Wildhorn's musicals it has decent individual songs but feels a bit weak as a whole. I'd even venture to say this feels almost incomplete. There are moments and performances I liked but the pacing is rushed and there are additional elements that go nowhere (Van Helsing has a whole song about a lost lover that I guess is supposed to give us some kind of insight as to why he hunts vampires. I don't know, I wasn't that invested and it tied into nothing, it just caused the musical to grind to as screeching halt) The musical also won't work for anyone who hasn't read the book, this is very much a musical that relies on its audience to know the source material because it glosses over so many characters and plot points. Some of the choices it makes are just...stupid. Quincey dies pointlessly off screen and Mina is aware of it because...she's psychic I guess? I don't know she can randomly read Dracula's mind. After all the shit that everyone goes through Dracula just asks Mina to kill him because....fuck it he's tired of living? And she does and it's the most trite bullshit and it ends with her cradling Drac's body while Johnathan stares at her. I get the vibe that their relationship is broken, tbh this musical did Johnathan so dirty. .... Well this got away from me. Uuuhhhhh To summarize. It had potential, there were good moments and good songs, but the whole Dracula x Mina subplot kills it for me.

[walterdecourceys]

bad (?) frankenstein movie found at the thrift store

victor frankenstein (2015) mentioned 🫵🫵 that is actually one of the better ones in my opinion. it is not at all faithful as an adaptation but at least it's entertaining and homoerotic. AND it has some of the best victor characterization i've seen in anything

[its-tea-time-darling]

MID YEAR BOOK FREAKOUT TAG

thanks for the tag @myladyofmercy 💜

1. Best book you've read so far in 2024

die schwester - joy fielding

2. Best sequel you've read so far in 2024

i don't think i read a sequel

3. New release you haven't read yet but want to

die entflammten - simone meier

4. Most anticipated release for the second half of the year

"the pairing by casey mcquiston" < omg new casey mcquiston book incoming???????

5. Biggest disappointment

cleopatra and frankenstein - coco mellors

it wasn't fully a disappointment, in fact i liked big parts of it and many of the characters, but where the story ends for one specific character left a sour taste in my mouth.

spoiler below

somehow everyone gets their happy ending except the one queer character. i tried to search the book and critiques of it up but i didn't see this mentioned anywhere and that's just... idk it's very strange. nearly all of the characters struggle with some sort of addiction, but they all overcome them, except the queer characters who is introduced to meth by one of her lovers and disappears in misery, might be dead by the end of the book, we don't know. like. that's icky. and if anyone who's more knowledgeable on the book scene knows why no one ever brings that up i'd be interested to hear about it.

6. Biggest surprise

-

7. Favourite new author (debut or new to you)

-

8. Newest fictional crush

-

9. Newest favourite character

idk about 'favorite' but i liked one of the side characters in cleopatra and frankenstein a lot but i forget his name 😂

10. Book that made you cry

sanctuary by paola mendoza

11. Book that made you happy

most books i read do bc i like reading, otherwise id put them away 😊

12. Favourite book to film adaptation that you've seen this year

don't think i've seen any

13. Most beautiful book you've bought so far this year (or received)

die insel der tausend leuchttürme - walter moers

14. What books do you need to read by the end of the year

the new casey mcquiston book!!! now that i know there is one 😊

15. How many new books have you read so far

no idea i don't keep track

tagging @thominho-incorrectquotes @astralpenguin @itsthemxze

[tyrantisterror]

What's the worst legacy sequel you've ever seen? What, in your opinion, separates a good legacy sequel from a bad legacy sequel and what's the worst thing you think a legacy sequel can do?

The worst that I've seen is probably Rise of Skywalker. It's close competition, though - both Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and Jurassic World: Dominion have moments that are significantly more stupid than anything in Rise of Sky Walker, but I also think both have a bit more creative effort put into them - Fallen Kingdom has that third act where it basically becomes a Resident Evil adaptation except with a murder-saurus in place of the Tyrant, and Dominion has the whole locust plotline which, while terrible, is at least an unexpected direction for a Jurassic Park sequel to go into that tries to figure out something ELSE you could do with the genetic engineering premise of the franchise beyond just making dinosaurs. Like, all three Jurassic World movies have big problems and they get progressively dumber with each installment, but they're also all ambitious to some degree that I still feel respect for, even if they never really actually reach those lofty aspirations.

Rise of Skywalker, on the other hand, has no ambitions at all. It has nothing it wants to say, no unique twists to pull, no real identity of its own. It's a potroast made of leftovers from better movies, a resuscitated corpse of something much more interesting, patched together like a Frankenstein's monster and abandoned to a cruel world just as callously.

It has no desire to do anything new, merely a checklist of Things You've Seen Before That the Focus Groups Say You'd Probably Like to See Again. Any character that can be slipped into an arc that was done in a previous Star Wars film is slipped into one no matter how little sense it makes for them, and any character who can't is either forced to tread water with nothing to do (hi Finn!) or just quietly shoved off to the side early on and forgotten about (hi Rose!).

Any story beats that weren't in the original films are simply grabbed from a box that reads "time tested cliches to keep your script moving with minimal effort." Make the plot a treasure hunt so we can just race from scene to scene with the flimsiest justification possible and try and trick the audience into thinking something is actually happening! What's that, audience interest is flagging? Quick, throw in a cameo of someone from an older movie! What's that, they're bored again? Pretend to kill one of the old characters, but make sure to reveal they actually lived in no more than two scenes down the line, or else we might piss off the fanboys! Hey, let's look at the Cinema Sins videos for the original movies and see if there's some gripes we can "fix" with this one for added fan cred! Can't disappoint our audience!

It's the story-telling equivalent of smothering something in salt to cover up the funky taste of the close-to-the-expiration-date ingredients.

As for what makes a good vs. a bad legacy sequel... ok, so, let's define legacy sequel first. A legacy sequel is a film or TV show that is a sequel to a popular film or TV series that ended a good many years ago, which brings back some of the old cast of characters (generally played by the same, and thus much older, actors that played them in the past) along with adding a new cast of characters played by younger actors. It tries to replicate the tone of the original series despite being made in a different era and probably by different writers and directors, and generally aims to give you that Ratatouille style moment of nostalgia.

I think most Legacy sequels are kind of doomed to be mediocre at best on the outset because the goal of them from the moment of conception is so mercenary - they're not created to Tell A Good Story, they're created to Keep Consumers Invested in a Lucrative Content Franchise. They have the artistic aspirations of a McDonald's Hamburger - "This tastes exactly like what you had as a kid, and doesn't that make you crave more of it?"

I don't think that art made for mercenary reasons is doomed to be bad, mind you - I mean, almost ALL movies and television were made to make money first and foremost. Even the classic High Art movies I love like Seven Samurai and The Third Man were made for mercenary reasons at the end of the line - it didn't stop the people who were working on them from having artistic goals, but it's a fact nonetheless.

But Legacy Sequels just have an uphill battle in the "artistic aspirations" department, because most people with artistic aspirations don't want to recreate the feeling someone else inspired with their art - they want to put their own stamp on it, their own spin, their own voice. And that will often mean something VERY different will be made, something that might piss of the fans - something that doesn't taste like the McDonald's hamburger you had as a kid, even though it came in the same wrapper.

The worst parts of Legacy Sequels are the only parts that Rise of Skywalker is made of - the parts where the story is clearly only trying to show you things you know, only trying to reheat the leftovers so they taste like your memories, only trying to trick the nostalgia center of your brain that you're four years old again eating at McDonald's. "Here's the thing you know! Here's the running gag you liked, repeated five more times by actors with far less enthusiasm! Here's the same basic premise as the first film, but the stakes have been inflated to make it feel like a progression! Cameos! Catch phrases! Eat your hamburger, you consumer pig!"

The rare good legacy sequels don't really TRY to be legacy sequels. They're just... sequels. Another story in the same world as the first, bringing back the characters who actually have interesting arcs left in them, creating new characters with their own shit going on who have good chemistry with the pre-established characters and setting, expanding on themes from the original and exploring parts of the setting that hadn't been explored yet, and all in all telling their own story that's related to the first one's but still manages to be its own distinct thing.

There are not many good legacy sequels, because a good legacy sequel is different than the McDonald's hamburger you ate when you were four, and might make less money than desired because of it.

[dodger-chan]

So I've read chapter seven now and,

The tortures of the accused did not equal mine

Really, Victor? Really?

Victor, you are not the worst because you are a bad parent (though you are). You are the worst because you see other people as supporting characters (at best) and props for your life.

Okay, at this point in the book Victor is still the only person (except possibly William) who has seen the creature. Without the context of the rest of the novel, it is still possible that Victor simply had a breakdown and hallucinated his success. That his brother was killed by Justine (we know it can't be a random murderer, because Justine had the picture; she is either specifically being framed or she stole it herself).

Aside: I wonder how long I'll be able to string out the "Victor Frankenstein never created life" theory before the book explicitly contradicts it? I kinda wish I were able to read this without the context of several adaptations/general pop culture knowledge. Because if this were a completely new story to me, I'd probably believe this theory, and I really like how Shelley has written her story to leave this possibility open so long.

[ancestorlegacy]

HELLO. About those tags on my Frankenstein post..

What do I think about it?

Book? Second favorite book ever, plan to reread it soon and I adore it. The only book I prefer over Frankenstein is the count of Monte Cristo, which is another can of worms entirely.

I think Frankenstein is good and a must read for everyone. Obviously yes the story is good but the sheer amount of misinformation about it pisses me off so very much and that would be fixed if reading the book was mandatory for living /lh. There's two (main (don't worry about the rest)) versions, 1818 and 1831. 1831 is the more famous one, basically Shelley just made some minor edits to things she didn't like. Best (and biggest edit) is that she removed the incest.

Sorry I am going to talk about multiple versions of the story.

Musical? There's two, iirc. There's 'Frankenstein: a new musical' and 'young Frankenstein'. I have only listened to the former one because I am scared to learn what the latter is. All I know is that it uses a design for the monster that I hate, which is 97% of my reason for not listening to it.

The former is from 2008 and not very famous. The actors have absolutely AMAZING voices, like genuinely words cannot describe my love for Victor, the monster and Elizabeth's singing. The rest are good too, but it's those three that especially stick out to me.

It doesn't have a single bad song. Vibe wise, I'd say it's a bit like Jekyll and Hyde and Sweeney Todd. Lots of bangers but obviously only listen to it after reading the book. It's also a fairly faithful adaptation. There's only two major changes from the book and I like both of them.

Junji Ito manga adaptation? Ough. I'm only 50~ pages in so far but WOWZER it's amazing. Junjo Ito is the perfect mangaka for adapting Frankenstein. I was super excited to read it because I like some of Ito's other works so I'm very pleased that this one is good (so far (I've heard the entire thing is good though))

1931 movie? UGHH. I think it's good on its own. Completely divorced from the context of the book, it's good. Compared to the book though, absolutely dreadful.

Order you should consume them in?

1931 movie first so you can enjoy it properly, the actual book and then it doesn't matter if you do the musical or manga next. Also there's a 2004 two episode long mini series that I have not seen yet but supposedly it's a very good and faithful adaptation.

Would I recommend original language?

Idk. I've only read it in English but I'd imagine there's good French translations. It's one of the most famous books ever so there's absolutely a French fella who did an absolutely amazing and flawless translation. I'm sure there's also versions in English with updated more modern language but I think that classics should always be read in a version as close to the original as possible to preserve artistic intent.

I hope you enjoy it :3 it's so good :3

I'm glad to see how much you like it! I was planning on reading it sooner or later (and I'm doing an English licence, so I probably will have to), but you are selling it very well. Thanks for the order by the way!

[lettherebemonsters]

Your love and dedication to make both canon characters and original characters with so many details, love and lots of stories and extras is such an amazing experience. You're really inspiring! Also to know that every interaction with you as a writer is very pleasant and not pressured at all, just here to have fun and write. I just feel grateful to be a mutual of yours!

@disasters-of-dbd

I love your dedication to your slasher muses :) you do so good with bringing them to life..

@verratensduo

I AM NOT ONLY SLIDING IN, BUT I AM WIPING OUT FURNITURE IN THE PROCESS. Spooky, my clown sibling in crime, I ADORE seeing you on the Dash and all of the conversations we've had together! Your approach to Ken as a character takes a previous one note, and frankly pretty underdeveloped idea of a character (I'm sorry the devs haven't given him enough exploration, I wish the tomes covered more than they did!) AND MADE HIM INTO THIS WHOLE PERSON WHO IS UNDERSTANDABLE-

But not forgivable! You've made Ken into this character who I can really understand the cause and effect for, who I can feel empathy and pity and shame for! ISTG you've main me a clown main fr /lh. ALSO LIKE, the plotting we've done and the relationship we've built up between him and Sally just goes to further show how far and how much you can write and adapt and make so engaging! I live for it! AND THAT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR ORIGINAL STUFF

I will just come out and say it! Ringmaster is one of the best, most compelling and frankly awesome original monster characters I have seen in far, far too long! Someone here explained it better but they harken to the best parts of classic Universal monsters and I could listen to you info dump about them for hours without getting bored!! You're just such an engaging story teller and such a sweet mun and I'm so glad I get to call you my pal!

@dcwnthercbbithcle

Best friend! My darling! My platonic soulmate! You’re amazing. You’re so creative, both with your OCs and the headcanons you write for your canon muses. You’re so talented. Both in writing and drawing. You’re amazing and fun to talk to. I adore you! I’m so glad we found each other here.

@songbirdsandsugar

I love your monster designs! I love all the little details that tie back into their story. Your idea are always super interesting to read and I love how they always feel classic universal monster at times. It's really fun.

@bells-of-black-sunday

(*aggressive excited clown honks*)

I've been holding onto this post JUST so I can react to all the feedback and I just????? Love you guys so much.

And I love how everyone caught the influence of the Universal Monsters on my muses. I'm a huge fan of the classics and many of my characters are straight up based on Mr. Hyde (yes I know he's Paramount but shush he still counts meh), Frankenstein (don't even start with me on the bullshit about Frankenstein being just the doctor) and the Wolfman (doggo!)

So obviously the influence is DEEP and I love using them along with literary monsters, games, etc. Like sometimes I love mixing slashers with universal monsters lol.

Honestly y'all rock and here's me sending you interact XO's!