Talk:Frankenstein's monster

message: The reason I removed "sometimes 'the fiend' or 'the creature'" from the initial description of the monster is that, out of context, no one would know you meant Frankenstein's Monster if you talked about simply the Fiend or the Creature. It's true that these words (uncapitalised) are how he is usually referred to throughout the novel, so I put a note in to that effect.
I have seen "Frankenstein's Creature" and "the Frankenstein Monster" in other places, so I put them back in. Hope this seems reasonable. Robin Johnson 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankenstein IS the name of the creature, who for all ethical and legal purposes is Victor Frankenstein's son. It is only the character, Victor Frankenstein, in his first person narrative, who refuses to acknowledge his name. This contrast between Shelley's title of the book(she could have called it "Victor Frankenstein", but she didn't) and the fact that Victor Frankenstein refuses to acknowledge his child, is the central conflict and metaphor of the novel. Armadillo Ocean (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative names for the Monster

message: On a point of pedantry, I don't know how to rename an article, but Monster should be a capital M there. (Yes, the Creature is a monster, small-m, but "Frankenstein's Monster" is a proper name.) Robin Johnson 10:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Title

message: It's been changed back and forth a few times now, so I suggest we discuss this. I'm not a Frankenstein expert, so I'm suprised to see much of my original text in here. That's beside the point.
The bolts in his neck. Were they always there or not? Modern invention? Does it matter?
--Fourthgeek 06:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're certainly not mentioned in the novel. I believe Boris Karloff has them in the 1931 film; that's probably the origin of most of the 'popular culture' image of the Monster. I think there should be separate discussions of the physical description of the monster in the novel (on which very little information is actually given) and the popular image - maybe I'll hack osmething in later. (...later: done.) Robin Johnson 10:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  They aren’t actually bolts, they are electrodes, to which the wires from the lightning conductors are placed in the Universal movie, and are thus part of their make-up design and image for the Creature… Jock123 (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bolt

message: At least one author[*] claims that the now-iconic flat-headed look of Frankenstein's monster in the films is based on a Francisco Goya etching, Los Chinchillas (the seated/reclining figure; see this image).  I don't find any mention of that in this or any of our related articles (or elsewhere online, for that matter), which credit Boris Karloff and Jack Pierce with inventing the look without mentioning Goya as its ultimate origin.  Does anyone know if any other authors have mentioned this connection, either confirming it or else saying that the similarity is merely coincidental?
:[*] Richard Davenport-Hines. Gothic: Four Hundred Years of Excess, Horror, Evil and Ruin.  North Point Press, 1999, pp. 160-61.
--Delirium 03:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it could also be mentioned that Charles Ogle had a built up head, which in photos looks to be bandaged, but this may just be the result of fabric being used in the building and attaching of the head-piece; this gives his head a squared profile too. I think Jack Pearce said that he’d taken a practical approach to the design, and reasoned that in opening the skull and inserting a different brain, Frankenstein would simply have taken a straight cut across the cranium, and this lead to the flat head. Jock123 (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the film look 

message: It's been a LONG time since i've read the novel, but I seem to recall that Victor referred to him as "the demon" more than any other name.  Am I just wrong here, or is it possible that these other names are being taken from the 1931 film and its sequels?  --MateoP 17:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently reading the novel, and Shelley called the monster all of these things in the book. Thorns Among Our Leaves 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The demon? 

message: I don't remember Frankenstein's sled falling into the sea and being saved by the ship as this article states.  As I remember it he disassembled part of the sled so as to float and row towards the ship.  Could this be a difference between the two versions of the book (the 1818 and 1831 editions), or am I mistaken? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thepatriots (talk • contribs).
:You are probably right, in the 1818 edition he does not fall into the ice, but breaks up his sled to build oars which to row his floating ice-raft over to the ship and safety. -- Stbalbach 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victor Frankenstein being saved by the ship 

message: I feel that a picture that portrays the creature's appearance as described in the book (such as the one from the 1831 edition) would be far more suiting for this page than that of Boris Karloff. The Karloff picture just doesn't seem suiting and it's already featured on the page for "Frankenstein in popular culture" anyways.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.72.51 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image on the page 

message: Shouldn't Frankenstein's monster also be listed under fictional murderers? In the story, he murders Frankenstein's brother.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.203.83 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion on "Species" below ... if it ain't human, then it ain't murder. 194.74.62.195 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Murderers listing 

message: I seem to remember that the "Arabian" Safie was actually Turkish. However, she is called an Arabian in the novel (by Felix), so would it be appropriate to correct this? Also, the De Laceys cannot really be called "peasants". --Kannan91 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabian? 

message: It is a slap in the face of common sense to not include a single picture of the monster as it is most popularly imagined, as Boris Karloff with the flat head and neck bolts. This is obviously not how Mary Shelley described the creature, but it is demonstrably the most popular and enduring image. Oh, and I'd upload a picture myself but I fear some fanatic with too much free time would have me slaughtered on the altar of wiki-anal retentiveness for not getting posthumous written permission (signed in blood, ideally) from Karloff, James Whale, Mary Shelley, the publicity photographer who took the photo, his darkroom assistants, and then finding a New York Times article unambiguously stating that I did so, and ten other sources unambiguously stating that the New York Times is a notable source. Love always, Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular depiction.  

message: The infobox lists species as 'human (Gestalt entity).' I suppose you can draw this inference from the motion pictures, but in the novel of what and how he is made is unclear, and he is simply a 'monster.'  Given the creature's eloquence, if he was 'human' wouldn't he have made that point himself? I'm deleting the 'species' section in the infobox. BoosterBronze (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then shouldn't he be included in the fictional undead category?  142.26.194.190 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The book never makes it clear exactly how the creature is assembled - the 'stitched together' idea is what the movies rolled with, but it's also possible to interpret it as being a homunculus instead. Which would make the issue of species far less clear. 194.74.62.195 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Zombies are animated by magic. Mr Monsterguy was animated by electricity and fiction. And I believe the novel actually refers to him as a homunculus, though I've also heard robot fiction enthusiasts describe him as a robot. Zombie/undead really doesn't seem quite right, though, as there is no magic involved. 73.218.186.141 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species? 

message: I always wondered why we associate the name "Frankenstein" with the monster -- and not its creator.
But it be that non-Germans of the time linked the threatening evil with their WWI enemies? The movie would've been released a little more than a decade after the conflict.
Any thoughts?
75.70.53.129 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Associated with Monster: German Connection? 

message: Today you picture Frankenstein as an enormous man being zombie-like with bolts coming thought the skin of his neck and scaring the people of the villages close by.  This in no way was what Mary Shelly was trying to portray.  Victor Frankenstein is the creator, he never actually gives his creation a name, but creature.  This creature then longs for a fulfilled life of normality that he can not have.  Whereas his creator seeks for solitude in his studies, and lurks around corners. Leaving the question by Victor's actions who really is the true Monster.--63.163.137.199 (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is the true Monster? 

message: The is a film called Flesh For Frankenstein , or Andy Warhols Frankenstein that should be added to the list. produced in the early 1970s I think Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Films 

message: Although this topic is touched upon in the lead, I think a section discussing the creature's name, and the different names applied to him, is justified. I have started the section by giving an example in which the monster is actually named Frankenstein (the Van Helsing movie of 2004). But there are also films in which he's called Victor and other names, so the section can easily be expanded with sources given. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Creature's name

message: I recently edited the opening section of this article, which stated that it was "incorrect" that the monster was called Frankenstein. While I agree that it should not be called Frankenstein -- because that name usually refers to Victor -- the monster is, in many ways, Victor's child. If this is the case, its surname should, logically, be Frankenstein, should it not? Lunaibis 01:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Frankenstein" ''really'' incorrect? 

message: "This image has been used as the basis for several other fictional characters." says the article & links to the Hulk.  That's one, not several.  How about Lurch & Herman Munster? JIMp talk·cont 15:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The basis for several other fictional characters 

message: Should it not be mentioned somewhere that Frankenstein's monster is often portrayed as green?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.64.192 (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is, it should probably be pointed out that this may be a misinterpretation of the Jack Pearce make-up, which was coloured green so that it would show up as a pallid grey in black-and-white; had a grey or white been used, it could have flared under the studio lighting (this was not uncommon, the same “trick” being used to make the console in early Doctor Who appear grey/ white, and even the Enterprise models on the original Star Trek were pale green to show white on colour film-stock). Jock123 (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankenstein's Monster being Green 

message: The title of that template to the side says "poo heads" and I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. It's ridiculous. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see that too, even though the page's history said that ClueBot had reverted the vandalism just one minute after it took place. I clicked "Edit" and "Save page" without changing anything, and now the page is correctly displaying "Frankenstein's Monster". It seems like we encountered a glitch of some sort, but whatever it was, it's taken care of for the time being. —Flax5 21:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for Frankenstein's Monster 

message: I changed the hatnote to point to Frankenstein (disambiguation) instead of Frankenstein's Monster (Marvel Comics). While the Marvel Comics character is notable, it is hardly the only interpretation of the character in comics, let alone other media. The Frankenstein dab page contains links to all Frankenstein articles in one place. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 02:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed hatnote to broaden results 

message: This seems to be like a fairly sweeping statement, when so many dramatic versions of the story (including the Universal one in 1931) make the Creature inarticulate, of limited intelligence (and presumably illiterate), in contrast to Shelley’s intelligent creation. So ingrained in the public perception of the monster is the sub-normal mental capacity, that it makes for a wealth of material in Mel Brookes’s Young Frankenstein, including Peter Boyle’s majestic recitation of a passage from the novel once he has undergone further surgery late in the movie, and intelligence has been restored. Likewise, Frankenstein, the True Story was able to use the intelligence of their Creature as a distinct selling point to distance it from other productions. So some films show him as intelligent and literate, but many (the majority?) do not. Jock123 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  “The novel and film versions portrayed him as intelligent and literate” 

message: The list of portrayals features primarily serious performances. Bur what about comedic versions of the monster? For example, Phil Hartman on Saturday Night Live and Fred Gwynne (and successors) as Herman Munster in The Munsters (and later revivals). True, in those two cases they are parodying a specific version of the Monster (Karloff's, with Hartman taking his cue from the infamous "Monster speaks" sequence in Bride of Frankenstein), but they are still based on the character. Jerry O'Connell later went on to play a non-comedic version of Herman for the TV movie Mockingbird Lane. Should these also be listed? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Herman Munster is not Frankenstein's Monster.  It is not a portrayal of Shelley's character, it is a portrayal of a character derived from Shelley's character.  Not the same thing at all.  Hartman's role is sometimes named "Frankenstein", but it is not a portrayal of Shelley's character, it is a parody of it. I think the list of portrayals is already a bit of an example farm, there's no need to loosen the definition to include more. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedic portrayals 

message: I think it would be good to move the section on names higher in the article, so that it's the first section after the lead.  Then I suggest moving all but the first paragraph of the lead into the beginning of that sectionAnythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: If I understand the story right, the entire point is that Victor Frankenstein is the monster, and not the creature. ♆ CUSH ♆ 01:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. Referring to the character as "Frankenstein's monster" is well established. --tronvillain (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe move to "Frankenstein's creature" ? 

message: The other media section includes examples that should be in the portrayals section which lists one-off TV appearances, specifically the Fables and Librarians appearances. The portrayals list was missing Lon Chaney's infamous live TV performance from 1952, which I added. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Media section 

message: Someone keeps making an inaccurate change to the page for “Frankenstein’s Monster” and now they’ve locked it. It needs to be unlocked so this can be fixed. 76.82.42.150 (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Cannolis (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021 

message: Someone keeps making an inaccurate change to the page and now they’ve locked it. It needs to be unlocked so this can be fixed. 76.82.42.150 (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A falsehood is locked in the page.