No, It's Probably Not a Good Idea to "Re-imagine" the Frankenstein Monster as a Fantasy Character
IGN has reported that, in July, Lakeshore Entertainment is going to begin shooting a new Frankenstein film called I, Frankenstein. If you're a Frankenstein fan, you'll likely be just as disappointed as I was after reading the details. Here is IGN's description of the project:
I, Frankenstein is a contemporary fantasy thriller in which the original monster of Victor Frankenstein stands between the human race and an uprising of supernatural creatures determined to overthrow the world.
... What?
Let's see what writer Kevin Grevioux had to say. Maybe he's got some ideas that are so awesome they'll overcome this premise as it is stated.
Grevioux: "The re-imagining of the Frankenstein mythos and the diverse creatures of legend is a dream project for me."
... WHAT?
Okay, it's one thing to "re-imagine" a character. Though there's always a high potential for abuse when doing so, it is also possible to revamp a character that has, throughout the years, become irrelevant. But Frankenstein and his monster are still relevant, and Grevioux wants to re-imagine the entire Frankenstein mythos. He wants to alter the very premise of the Frankenstein story.
I would pose three questions here:
1. Why on Earth would you want to use the Frankenstein monster, of all characters, to fight supernatural creatures? This isn't Van Helsing; it's a big, clumsy, barely-functioning oaf.
2. What could the Frankenstein mythos possibly gain from shedding its roots as a tale about the misuse of science and putting on the guise of an action fantasy story?
3. Why would you take a staple of science fiction - the story that is often considered the first work of science fiction ever - and turn it into a fantasy thriller, anyway?
Apparently I, Frankenstein is going to be based off a comic that will be released in March. So, we'll be able to get an idea of the story quality pretty soon. I'm not going to judge the movie before it's released, but this whole thing just sounds bad.






Comments
Personally I love the idea. I
Personally I love the idea. I loved Mary Shelley's Frankenstein from the first time I read, and I still love it today. Don't pretend you're open-minded though, because the mere fact that you go on about how bad it sounds means you've already prejudged it. But let me guess you're a purist who thinks movies are meant to be viewed in black and white right? As to the answer to your questions: You need to get out more. Where have you been, really? Unbeknownst to you and probably a whole lot of other unimaginative people, The Monster has been having adventures long past mother Shelley and father Victor's demise. Look to some comics, B-movies, and horror fiction for what could and has already been done with the monster. Actually, if you had imagination you would realize that after hundreds of years on earth, the monster could learn to not only live amongst humans (whether he chose to or not would be another question), but might also have a fondness for them. But I won't explain all of that to you, since you've already made up your mind. Great reporting by the way!
I do, of course, realize that
I do, of course, realize that the Frankenstein monster has been all over pop culture since the original Shelley story. But that still doesn't make it a good idea to mangle his roots.
I'm not sure if you understand the premise of the film as I understand it. The premise (from what I've read) does not seem to be that the monster has been around for hundreds of years -- indeed, a doubt his physical body could last more than a few decades (he's made of dead parts, after all). And there are already great examples of him obtaining a fondness for the human race (in fact, Shelley's novel had that), so I have no problem with that.
What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to mess with the Frankenstein mythos. He's not updating the monster for modern audiences, which would be fine. He's changing the story altogether. What sense does that make?
Post new comment