Talk:Bride of Frankenstein

message: Yes, at the time of the first film, Colin Clive was being built up as a matinee idol, which was the reason for the inclusion of the love scenes in both films. Note Clive's wardrobe throughout these scenes is that of the archetypal 1930s matineee idol, and is almost out of place for the 'mad scientist' image. This continues right through to the jodphurs he's wearing in the chase at the end of the first film. As part of this image change, they renamed him 'Henry'.
:*This is incorrect. The reason that Henry is named "Henry" is because in the 1927 stage adaptation of the Shelley book, playwright Peggy Webling switched the first name of two of the characters. Universal bought the rights to the Webling play and retained the names. Otto4711 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry

message: Some note should be made that the Monster can speak in this movie wheras in the original, he cannot. mice 05:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talking?

message: I think that we need to be very careful with such phrases as "the presentation of Pretorius as a coded homosexual" and "'sissified' -- 'sissy' itself being Hollywood code for 'homosexual'". Whether or not any specific item should be understood as "code" and exactly what it should be understood to mean are notoriously subjective matters. If we don't cite such usage, it appears to be the opinion of the editor. (I'm not talking about references to possible gay subtexts in the film, which are already cited -- only about specific use of the possible WP:WEASEL term "code"/"coded".) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Code": IMHO should be cited

message: Hi. In case it's helpful to those working on this article ... While searching today for something completely unrelated, I came across a reference to a journal article on music in this film:"Wedding Bells for The Bride of Frankenstein: Symbols and Signifiers in the Music for a Classic Horror Film," Film-Philosophy, special edition 2001: 103-116. It's by James Wierzbicki, who's Adjunct Associate Professor of Musicology at University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre & Dance. I managed to find a copy of the article online, which is at his site here. –Whitehorse1 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Music

message: Hi. Didn't anybody notice that Wikimedia Commons actually has a category about this movie with some free images that could be used ? Congratulations for the big work on this article. Thomas Guibal (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * In looking at the images there, none of them seem particularly beneficial to the article. Of the four, the one showing the four cast members is the best but is fairly redundant to the image of the Monster and Bride. That image is being used for illustration and commentary on the Bride's hairstyle and the existing image shows the hairstyle more clearly than the commons image. Otto4711 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All right then. Anyway I've just begun the translation of the article in Esperanto, and might use some of these pictures, so I just wanted to let you know about them. Have a nice day, Thomas Guibal (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Free media on Commons

message: The article notes that the Frankenstein depicted in the film has been interpreted as a Christ-like figure. It should perhaps mention the use of the term bride of Christ, which is a metaphor for the Ecclesia (church), likening the relationship between Christians and Jesus to a betrothal pointing to a future wedding. ADM (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * I can't say as I see a connection between the two, and regardless there would need to be reliable sources discussing the notion, otherwise it's original research. Otto4711 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bride of Christ

message: This article has been Featured for a year, and I would like to have an annual review to ensure that changes made in the year meet Featured Article criteria.  The diff of the changes over the year is seen here.  The changes look mostly acceptable, but I wanted to touch on some of them.
*The credits in the "writer" field seem for the better; I don't think it was appropriate to pipe Frankenstein into "novel" because it goes against WP:EGG.
*"The Bride rejects the Monster however, resulting in her death, that of Pretorius, and apparently the Monster's own death, when he destroys Henry's laboratory."  This sentence was removed from the lead section, likely because it was seen as a spoiler.  Does this sentence belong in the concise overview of the article body?
*"Entertainment Weekly considers this film superior to Frankenstein."  Information is verifiable, but should it be put in better context?
*The "Remake" section's sole citation no longer has any information about the planned remake.  (I recommend re-titling the section "Planned remake" for accuracy.)  We should update the citation and cite this sentence, "Brian Grazer and Sean Daniels will be producing, while Dirk Wittenborn would be co-writer."  Possibly update the section with any new information.
Do other editors have any thoughts about these points or anything else about the article, regarding the changes or beyond them? Erik (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised the section to have a little more historical context, and I think that the section qualifies for a stay.  In addition, WP:CRYSTAL opposes unverifiable speculation, and it is verifiable that Universal had discussions with Neil Burger.  Just cannot follow up on what has happened since. Erik (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Annual review

message: I have restored some redlinks that were (again) unlinked. I did this in accordance with how I understand Wikipedia:Red link. Please read Wikipedia:Red link before considering unlinking viable redlinks. However, if the consensus among wikipedia editors has changed such that redlinks are now to be shunned, then please campaign for that consensus to be reflected in the wording of Wikipedia:Red link. Thank you. I leave with a quote from that page:
-84user (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Won't someone please think of the REDLINKs

message: It's quite long. Isn't it better to subdivide it in 'Pre-Production', 'Casting', 'Filming' etc.? Moviefan (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * It's only eight paragraphs and material from various stages of production is blended together. Arbitrarily breaking it up will only make it choppy. Otto4711 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Production

message: ~~In one scene, Karl looks at a coffin and reads "she died in 1899", so the first 2 Frankenstein films are set in 1899.~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymickymikepeter (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1899 

message: Hi, I thought the title of this movie was "Bride of Frankenstein" and that the poster at the top of this page, which includes "The" in the title was a mistake in the production of that poster. Still, I see that  moved the article to "The Bride of Frankenstein": . Was this done with proper consideration? Attic Salt (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Sources such as Rotten Tomatoes, Brittanica, Roger Ebert and Turner Classic Movies all list the title without the definite article. IMDB has the "The" but mentions "Bride of Frankenstein" as the original title. I think the article should be moved back to the status quo title (this is an FA after all) and a new discussion arguing for the move should be started. Pinging  and .—indopug (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   and  IMDb is maintained by filmmakers and studios. It's a more reliable source for film titles. Additionally, how is it that various posters for the film include the word "The" in the title if it was a mistake?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know how posters got misproduced. But here is a link to the opening of the movie itself. It is clearly "Bride of Frankenstein", no "The": . Check it out. Attic Salt (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Contrary to what  says, IMDb is not maintained by the filmmakers or studios. Per WP:RS/IMDb "IMDb content is mostly user-submitted and often subject to speculation, rumor, hoaxes, and inaccuracies. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged." I have a copy of the film and don't mind checking the title on the DVD, but give me a few hours to get home to confirm. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Well, watch the opening title of the film itself: . Attic Salt (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, this is a featured article and I can't think of any major film article that has passed using IMDb as a source. Especially as most information gleamed from it can easily found in several other more reputable sites. The main point, your statement of it being maintained by the filmmakers or studios is wrong. As for the posters, we seem to have the A Fistful of Dollars (film posters). vs title screen Fistful of Dollars (film title) title argument. A large chunk of the film promotion calls the film The Bride of Frankenstein here, here, here, here. There is a mixture of them here. Whether we settle on one over the other, I think a simple notice on the spelling/phrasing as shown on the The Texas Chain Saw Massacre article's lead should suffice to explain the situation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , , Since this article is about the movie, and not the posters, I suggest that the title of the article be restored to "Bride of Frankenstein". Perhaps  can do this for us? Attic Salt (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough about our film-article naming policies to chime in, but I feel the move should be reverted as a matter of procedure since it was neither uncontroversial nor done after a discussion.—indopug (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), I couldn't find any consensus on what to title film in this situation. If it helps, the film is referred to simple as Bride of Frankenstein in the book Universal Horrors by Tom Weaver. My DVD from the Legacy Collection refers to the film as "Bride of Frankenstein" with no "The". The AFI Film Catalogue (here) also only calls it "Bride of Frankenstein". So outside promotional material, in more serious databases, historical overviews, and of course, as part of the film itself, it seems to be referred to as "Bride of Frankenstein". I'd lean towards that title because of that as it seems to be more common title. A mild hat note says it's titled "The Bride" couldn't hurt though just so we don't have to go through this situation again. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But I agree with you  --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, I wasn't trying to say against what you said, I was just following-up with the rest of the conversation. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Hello, this article is about the movie, not the poster. And for the third time, here is the opening of the movie: . Please look at it. Here's a link to the whole movie:  Attic Salt (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and recent move 

message: :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: Reverted to long-standing title after recent BOLD (but underdiscussed) move. (non-admin closure) --  Netoholic @ 19:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bride of Frankenstein (film) →  – The title of the movie is "Bride of Frankenstein". This is noted by watching the movie itself. Attic Salt (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

text: See discussion above, books, and the movie itself are linked there. Attic Salt (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 July 2021 

message: This is the cast list for the movie, all the actors are from Wikipedia however this explains facts about how they got their character, the sources were I got the explanations for the Cast Lists are from IMDB: 94.203.114.75 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB is not reliable and the article has a cast section. PrisonerB (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast

message: See the 2010 discussion under "Annual review", above, and especially the comment made then that The remake section should be entirely removed. There aren't all that many failed film projects that are worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, and there's no limit to the promotional material that could be inserted about who is and might be involved. Since then, the Remake section has grown again with promotional details of remakes which have never been made. I think this section should be removed entirely What do others think? Masato.harada (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Wikipedia policy is to only document remakes if they progress to shooting. Masato.harada (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NFF Masato.harada (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Remake section

message: The article states: "This decision [of allowing the Monster to speak] also meant that Karloff could not remove his dental plate, so now his cheeks did not have the sunken look of the original film." I don't fully understand this. Shouldn't it be "had to remove his dental plate"? To be able to speak? And the dental plate was the prosthetic that gave him the sunken look? Something doesn't add up in that sentence. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear re: dental plate 

message: "Taking place immediately after the events of the earlier film". This is actually incorrect, the first scene takes place before the ending of the first film, i.e. before Henry was brought home and discovered to be alive. The first film ends with Henry being taken care by Elizabeth in his bedroom. Whereas, when Bride begins, Henry is still unconscious at the mill. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you'd like to correct it? Masato.harada (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to the original