|
|
Post by jammer81386 on Oct 30, 2021 19:19:47 GMT
This has been a controversy that has raged for decades, with some insisting that "Frankenstein" is the scientist, while other say the distinction is pedantic. Where do you fall?
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Oct 30, 2021 19:43:58 GMT
It's a misattribution, but it's acceptable when Victor Frankenstein is not involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 20:23:13 GMT
Yes.
Frankenstein is the doctor, but it is his creation and the creation doesn't have a name.
When most people hear Frankenstein they think of the monster and I think the title of the movie is referring to both the creator and the creation. Some of the later movies blur the line even further.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Oct 30, 2021 20:25:11 GMT
Knowledge is knowing that Frankenstein isn't the monster. Wisdom is knowing that he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 30, 2021 20:31:22 GMT
No its not acceptable.
The only acceptable name to give the monster is Adam
When the monster speaks to Victor Frankenstein he calls himself "The Adam of your labours " and that is why Adam is the only acceptable name.
But who is the true monster Adam or his creator Victor Frankenstein?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 30, 2021 20:46:23 GMT
Has any adaptation ever had the monster adopt Frankenstein's name, given that Vicky is basically his dad?
Otherwise, Rudy in The Monster Squad had it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 21:14:52 GMT
No its not acceptable. The only acceptable name to give the monster is Adam When the monster speaks to Victor Frankenstein he calls himself "The Adam of your labours " and that is why Adam is the only acceptable name. But who is the true monster Adam or his creator Victor Frankenstein? Give me a break. If you were to say to someone "you know that character Adam from Frankenstein?" nobody would know what you were talking about. I refer to the doctor as Victor Frankenstein and the monster as Frankenstein's monster, but as a shortcut he is just referred to as Frankenstein. The whole argument is nitpicky BS. The point is just that someone understands what you are referring to, not necessarily whether or not the name of the character is Frankenstein. It is in fact not, but because he is the creation he can be seen as a "child" of Frankenstein therefor adopting the name.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 30, 2021 21:18:26 GMT
No its not acceptable. The only acceptable name to give the monster is Adam When the monster speaks to Victor Frankenstein he calls himself "The Adam of your labours " and that is why Adam is the only acceptable name. But who is the true monster Adam or his creator Victor Frankenstein? Give me a break. If you were to say to someone "you know that character Adam from Frankenstein?" nobody would know what you were talking about. I refer to the doctor as Victor Frankenstein and the monster as Frankenstein's monster, but as a shortcut he is just referred to as Frankenstein. The whole argument is nitpicky BS. Vader didn't say "No Luke, I am your father", Jason wasn't the killer in the first Friday the 13th, and Sinbad didn't play a genie. A lot of people being wrong doesn't make something right. |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 30, 2021 21:18:59 GMT
No its not acceptable. The only acceptable name to give the monster is Adam When the monster speaks to Victor Frankenstein he calls himself "The Adam of your labours " and that is why Adam is the only acceptable name. But who is the true monster Adam or his creator Victor Frankenstein? Give me a break. If you were to say to someone "you know that character Adam from Frankenstein?" nobody would know what you were talking about. I refer to the doctor as Victor Frankenstein and the monster as Frankenstein's monster, but as a shortcut he is just referred to as Frankenstein. The whole argument is nitpicky BS.
The point is just that someone understands what you are referring to, not necessarily whether or not the name of the character is Frankenstein. It is in fact not, but because he is the creation he can be seen as a "child" of Frankenstein therefor adopting the name. I don`t care.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 21:22:48 GMT
Give me a break. If you were to say to someone "you know that character Adam from Frankenstein?" nobody would know what you were talking about. I refer to the doctor as Victor Frankenstein and the monster as Frankenstein's monster, but as a shortcut he is just referred to as Frankenstein. The whole argument is nitpicky BS. Vader didn't say "No Luke, I am your father", Jason wasn't the killer in the first Friday the 13th, and Sinbad didn't play a genie. A lot of people being wrong doesn't make something right. Did you read the part I added? "Luke" I am your father" isn't people being wrong, it evolved as adding context. Jason in Friday the 13th isn't even analogous. If someone says Jason is the killer in the first movie that makes no sense and is flat out wrong, because there is no argument or reason for it. Look at the poster for Frankenstein vs. The Wolfman. It is the monster fighting the wolfman. The monster is being sold as Frankenstein, because the name sells and the monster is who is selling it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 21:32:14 GMT
Give me a break. If you were to say to someone "you know that character Adam from Frankenstein?" nobody would know what you were talking about. I refer to the doctor as Victor Frankenstein and the monster as Frankenstein's monster, but as a shortcut he is just referred to as Frankenstein. The whole argument is nitpicky BS.
The point is just that someone understands what you are referring to, not necessarily whether or not the name of the character is Frankenstein. It is in fact not, but because he is the creation he can be seen as a "child" of Frankenstein therefor adopting the name. I don`t care. I don't care what name someone uses as long as I know what they are referring to.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 30, 2021 21:41:37 GMT
Vader didn't say "No Luke, I am your father", Jason wasn't the killer in the first Friday the 13th, and Sinbad didn't play a genie. A lot of people being wrong doesn't make something right. Did you read the part I added? "Luke" I am your father" isn't people being wrong, it evolved as adding context. Jason in Friday the 13th isn't even analogous. If someone says Jason is the killer in the first movie that makes no sense and is flat out wrong, because there is no argument or reason for it. Look at the poster for Frankenstein vs. The Wolfman. It is the monster fighting the wolfman. The monster is being sold as Frankenstein, because the name sells and the monster is who is selling it. You're always adding shit while I reply, lol. I did pose the question of whether the monster ever adopted his creator's name, but I don't know if that's ever been canonized. If Jason being the killer is wrong, why isn't calling a character by the wrong name? We all know WHY people call the monster "Frankenstein" instead of "Frankenstein's monster" or "Adam", but I don't think mismarketing and osmosis are great arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 21:41:46 GMT
Keep in mind that the OP asked a specific question. "Is it ACCEPTABLE to refer to the monster as Frankenstein?"
That is different that asking "Is the name of the monster literally Frankenstein?"
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 21:55:11 GMT
Did you read the part I added? "Luke" I am your father" isn't people being wrong, it evolved as adding context. Jason in Friday the 13th isn't even analogous. If someone says Jason is the killer in the first movie that makes no sense and is flat out wrong, because there is no argument or reason for it. Look at the poster for Frankenstein vs. The Wolfman. It is the monster fighting the wolfman. The monster is being sold as Frankenstein, because the name sells and the monster is who is selling it. You're always adding shit while I reply, lol. I did pose the question of whether the monster ever adopted his creator's name, but I don't know if that's ever been canonized. If Jason being the killer is wrong, why isn't calling a character by the wrong name? We all know WHY people call the monster "Frankenstein" instead of "Frankenstein's monster" or "Adam", but I don't think mismarketing and osmosis are great arguments. It is because the Jason character literally isn't the killer in the first movie and people are dead wrong. The analogy is like saying that people think the name of the mother is Jason. Now I agree that many people think the name of the monster is Frankenstein, which is part of the marketing. Just look at most of the posters. It is Frankenstein with a big picture of the monsters face. The one movie that makes it clear is the James McAvoy movie Victor Frankenstein. I will say that the Peter Cushing movies do make a bigger distinction. There is a place for being pedantic and I don't think the name of the monster is that place. In conversation the name Frankenstein is goijng to come up either way, you need to say his name first when referring to the monster or people aren't going to know what monster you are talking about. I think my argument is apt, though I sort of understand your POV. Arguing over whether Jason is the killer in the first movie isn't nitpicky. It is language vs. an actual character. These people think Jason has always been the killer and that is a much bigger issue. The difference is that I know the name of the character isn't literally Frankenstein and I think my POV has been made quite clear about why I think it is acceptable to call him Frankenstein and I don't think I am being unreasonable. You even point out how you even posed the question of whether the monster has ever adopted the name and that seems to leave ambiguity even in your mind.
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Oct 30, 2021 22:01:48 GMT
You're always adding shit while I reply, lol. I did pose the question of whether the monster ever adopted his creator's name, but I don't know if that's ever been canonized. If Jason being the killer is wrong, why isn't calling a character by the wrong name? We all know WHY people call the monster "Frankenstein" instead of "Frankenstein's monster" or "Adam", but I don't think mismarketing and osmosis are great arguments. It is because the Jason character literally isn't the killer in the first movie and people are dead wrong. The analogy is like saying that people think the name of the mother is Jason. Now I agree that many people think the name of the monster is Frankenstein, which is part of the marketing. Just look at most of the posters. It is Frankenstein with a big picture of the monsters face. The one movie that makes it clear is the James McAvoy movie Victor Frankenstein. I will say that the Peter Cushing movies do make a bigger distinction. There is a place for being pedantic and I don't think the name of the monster is that place. In conversation the name Frankenstein is goijng to come up either way, you need to say his name first when referring to the monster or people aren't going to know what monster you are talking about. I think my argument is apt, though I sort of understand your POV. Arguing over whether Jason is the killer in the first movie isn't nitpicky. It is language vs. an actual character. These people think Jason has always been the killer and that is a much bigger issue. The difference is that I know the name of the character isn't literally Frankenstein and I think my POV has been made quite clear about why I think it is acceptable to call him Frankenstein and I don't think I am being unreasonable. You even point out how you even posed the question of whether the monster has ever adopted the name and that seems to leave ambiguity even in your mind. Moviemouth- I would appreciate it if you would contribute to my survey- here is the link- thanks imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/285642/help-survey-appreciate
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Oct 30, 2021 22:03:19 GMT
Did you read the part I added? "Luke" I am your father" isn't people being wrong, it evolved as adding context. Jason in Friday the 13th isn't even analogous. If someone says Jason is the killer in the first movie that makes no sense and is flat out wrong, because there is no argument or reason for it. Look at the poster for Frankenstein vs. The Wolfman. It is the monster fighting the wolfman. The monster is being sold as Frankenstein, because the name sells and the monster is who is selling it. You're always adding shit while I reply, lol. I did pose the question of whether the monster ever adopted his creator's name, but I don't know if that's ever been canonized. If Jason being the killer is wrong, why isn't calling a character by the wrong name? We all know WHY people call the monster "Frankenstein" instead of "Frankenstein's monster" or "Adam", but I don't think mismarketing and osmosis are great arguments. Moviebuff I would appreciate it if you could help me out with my survey- only takes a minute. I would like to know your views. Here is the link imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/285642/help-survey-appreciate
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 22:04:08 GMT
It is because the Jason character literally isn't the killer in the first movie and people are dead wrong. The analogy is like saying that people think the name of the mother is Jason. Now I agree that many people think the name of the monster is Frankenstein, which is part of the marketing. Just look at most of the posters. It is Frankenstein with a big picture of the monsters face. The one movie that makes it clear is the James McAvoy movie Victor Frankenstein. I will say that the Peter Cushing movies do make a bigger distinction. There is a place for being pedantic and I don't think the name of the monster is that place. In conversation the name Frankenstein is goijng to come up either way, you need to say his name first when referring to the monster or people aren't going to know what monster you are talking about. I think my argument is apt, though I sort of understand your POV. Arguing over whether Jason is the killer in the first movie isn't nitpicky. It is language vs. an actual character. These people think Jason has always been the killer and that is a much bigger issue. The difference is that I know the name of the character isn't literally Frankenstein and I think my POV has been made quite clear about why I think it is acceptable to call him Frankenstein and I don't think I am being unreasonable. You even point out how you even posed the question of whether the monster has ever adopted the name and that seems to leave ambiguity even in your mind. Moviemouth- I would appreciate it if you would contribute to my survey- here is the link- thanks IMDB2.freeforums.net/thread/285642/help-survey-appreciate I would, but it is too difficult. I simply don't have a good enough memory to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 30, 2021 22:06:09 GMT
Did you read the part I added? "Luke" I am your father" isn't people being wrong, it evolved as adding context. Jason in Friday the 13th isn't even analogous. If someone says Jason is the killer in the first movie that makes no sense and is flat out wrong, because there is no argument or reason for it. Look at the poster for Frankenstein vs. The Wolfman. It is the monster fighting the wolfman. The monster is being sold as Frankenstein, because the name sells and the monster is who is selling it. I did pose the question of whether the monster ever adopted his creator's name, but I don't know if that's ever been canonized. If Jason being the killer is wrong, why isn't calling a character by the wrong name? We all know WHY people call the monster "Frankenstein" instead of "Frankenstein's monster" or "Adam", but I don't think mismarketing and osmosis are great arguments. I understand why that can be frustrating. It is that I think of more stuff to add after I post to try to be more clear. I do that to everybody. Sometimes I do it up to 3 or even 4 times. 
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 30, 2021 22:16:42 GMT
You're always adding shit while I reply, lol. I did pose the question of whether the monster ever adopted his creator's name, but I don't know if that's ever been canonized. If Jason being the killer is wrong, why isn't calling a character by the wrong name? We all know WHY people call the monster "Frankenstein" instead of "Frankenstein's monster" or "Adam", but I don't think mismarketing and osmosis are great arguments. It is because the Jason character literally isn't the killer in the first movie and people are dead wrong. The analogy is like saying that people think the name of the mother is Jason. Now I agree that many people think the name of the monster is Frankenstein, which is part of the marketing. Just look at most of the posters. It is Frankenstein with a big picture of the monsters face. The one movie that makes it clear is the James McAvoy movie Victor Frankenstein. I will say that the Peter Cushing movies do make a bigger distinction. There is a place for being pedantic and I don't think the name of the monster is that place. In conversation the name Frankenstein is goijng to come up either way, you need to say his name first when referring to the monster or people aren't going to know what monster you are talking about. I think my argument is apt, though I sort of understand your POV. Arguing over whether Jason is the killer in the first movie isn't nitpicky. It is language vs. an actual character. These people think Jason has always been the killer and that is a much bigger issue. The difference is that I know the name of the character isn't literally Frankenstein and I think my POV has been made quite clear about why I think it is acceptable to call him Frankenstein and I don't think I am being unreasonable. You even point out how you even posed the question of whether the monster has ever adopted the name and that seems to leave ambiguity even in your mind. I agree that it's not the world's biggest issue, I'm just stumbling over why it's not incorrect. I think the majority of people who call him Frankenstein think his name is actually Frankenstein, rather than self-aware shorthand for "Frankenstein's monster". Also, couldn't you use the same argument for "Jason's mom"? |
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 30, 2021 22:32:40 GMT
Well technically both of them are, so yeah.
|
|
