Why "I, Frankenstein" is going to suck the balls of a homeless man

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Lestov16
pxOSPfUw3qw


I just viewed the trailer to the new Aaron Eckhardt film, I Frankenstein, and like most of you, I am massively disappointed in the way the Monster is being portrayed. But why? The film doesn't look terrible by any means, and had Frankenstein never been mentioned, I would have loved to see this film as an escapist popcorn flick. I have no problem seeing Aaron Eckhardt as a brooding undead badass taking down demonic gargoyles. But NOT AS FRANKENSTEIN'S MONSTER. By including the Monster here, they have

a) negated the point of the original story, mainly the point about the Monster being unable to blend in with society due to his appearance. Obviously, Eckhardt doesn't seem to have too much trouble in this adaptation

b) makes Frankenstein into some kind of Harry-Potter-esque magic world that it never was. I know the story of Frankenstein is a fantastical one, and obviously galvanizing stitched up body parts won't bring it to life, but it was never supernatural like this. It was pure sci-fi.

c)completely missed the point of the original story, which was about a man who played God and couldn't control his creation. This film is generic "stop bad guys from conquering Earth" stuff and will probably not even attempt to convey the original story's message.


This trailer reminded me massively of Van Helsing, in which another famous literary character was updated into an action hero, but at least with Helsing, he actually was a monster hunter in the books, so the viewer can make the stretch that he hunts other monsters too. With this film though, they have changed the Monster's character so unrecognizably that it doesn't even qualify to be called the same character.


This is why people are upset at this film. Not because it looks like a popcorn flick, because there are plenty of great popcorn flicks (i.e. Pacific Rim), but because it's trying to pass itself off as a sequel or spin-off to Shelley's original work, but completely disregards everything that made Shelley's work so famous. It's blatantly clear that they chose the Monster as the protagonist here not because they wanted to adapt Shelley's character to modern times, but merely because Frankenstein's Monster is universally popular and is a safe bet to draw in a profit.

Films are art first and money-makers second. Unfortunately, due to the high costs and profits of making films, Hollywood has long forgotten this. Films have to have SOME originality to them. Even Pacific Rim, whose premise of giant robots vs giant monsters has been done to death, was entertaining merely because it was trying to tell it's own original story, rather than dumb itself down to market itself to the widest audience. It's tragically obvious though that the makers of I Frankenstein don't want to tell a story. They just want your money, and they will appeal to the lowest common denominator to get it. As I said earlier, if this film used it's own original protagonist, I would love to see it. But the filmmakers are essentially pimping out Frankenstein's name ONLY to attract an audience to pay to see it.

The filmmakers are trying to attract an audience purely on the popularity of Frankenstein. That means that the filmmakers were focused more on making profit than making art. That means that they didn't have any passion in making the film. That means they didn't put much effort into making the film. That means the movie is going to suck ass.


In conclusion, I will state once again. If this film had it's own protagonist, I would be ecstatic to see this film. But seeing the filmmakers try to exploit Frankenstein's popularity only confirms that they don't care about the film, only the profit it will generate, and thus more than likely produced something mediocre, or worst.

the ninjak
I enjoyed Frankenstein Unbound. 1990.
Cheesy as it was, It's far more acceptable than this trash.

Kazenji
Even when they showed this at the San Diego Comic-con it didn't get a positive reaction

i checked out the trailer a few months back and meh from me too.

Patient_Leech
Yeah, the more I see from this, the dumber it looks. New TV spot below. I know I keep mentioning it, but I'd seriously much rather see the Wachowskis do their Doc Frankenstein as a live action film. I think it would be a little more self-aware and probably more irreverent.

1rfWvyV055U

Ridley_Prime
After seeing a trailer it didn't look quite as bad as I thought, but I love Aaron Eckhart as an actor so I might be a bit biased here, not that I'm expecting much out of it or anything still.

Darth Martin
Movie looks pretty bad. Surprised Eckhart took this on.

Ridley_Prime
Me too actually. Doesn't seem fitting for someone awesome like Eckhart to be in this... trainwreck of a film.

BruceSkywalker
if yvonne strahovski is nude then, this will be worth it

hahahaha

quanchi112
Here is some advice. Go see the movie before crying about it.

Robtard
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
if yvonne strahovski is nude then, this will be worth it

hahahaha

Still watching this as a download, looks way too crappy to see in a theatre.

Esau Cairn
Well it feels the same vein as Legion & Priest. Both not perfect but at least entertaining.

Kazenji
I know this is another movie based on a comic......which i first heard about a few months back

i'm guessing the comic is better or not.

Darth Martin
Originally posted by quanchi112
Here is some advice. Go see the movie before crying about it. This coming from the guy who hated Man of Steel before it even released.

http://cdn.niketalk.com/5/5a/5a9990ee_jay-z-laugh-e1348848394860.jpeg

Mindset
Lestov, sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Kazenji
Yeah try reading up on what its about, Rather then ranting on about thinking it might not have something to do with the Mary Shelley story.

Lestov16
It's going to suck. I am willing to bet 1 billion imaginary dollars (or $7 in food stamps; your choice).

BruceSkywalker
Originally posted by Robtard
Still watching this as a download, looks way too crappy to see in a theatre.


i might be doing the same.. very doubtful i will be paying money to see this

Stealth Moose
It looks like cheap and easy entertainment. I mean, there's a lot of gutter trash released lately with high profile actors (Hansel and Gretel, etc.) so this shouldn't be surprising to anyone. I wasn't particularly concerned with Frankenstein being done correctly any more than I'm upset about yet another Dracula adaptation on tv that has steampunk style technology. I might Red Box this at least. The action might be redeeming.

Flyattractor
It looks like the CW version of Frank. All about getting the little tweeny girls to SQUEEEE!!!



muh gawd this could make BILLIONS!

Kazenji
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
It looks like cheap and easy entertainment. I mean, there's a lot of gutter trash released lately with high profile actors (Hansel and Gretel, etc.).

Hansel & Gretel was actually decent....well i thought it was.

Esau Cairn
Originally posted by Kazenji
Hansel & Gretel was actually decent....well i thought it was.

I enjoyed H&G but what annoyed me was that they were supposed to be legendary witch hunters & yet every battle scene we saw them constantly getting their backsides kicked.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Kazenji
Hansel & Gretel was actually decent....well i thought it was.

It reminded me of Underworld. It's not the best kind of fiction, and you feel kind of cheesy for enjoying it, but you still do.

Mindset
Originally posted by Flyattractor
It looks like the CW version of Frank. All about getting the little tweeny girls to SQUEEEE!!!



muh gawd this could make BILLIONS! What are you talking about?

This is based off a comic.

Flyattractor
Twilight......Nuff said.

Kazenji
Not even close

doesn't seem this Frank sparkles in the sunlight from the footage.

Mindset
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Twilight......Nuff said. All I'm getting from this is that you're stupid, tbh.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Mindset
All I'm getting from this is that you're stupid, tbh. What I was saying was that I wouldn't be surprised if this did well in theaters because it is a Twilight Version of Frankenstien. The correlation being that the Twi movies were giirlied up pices of Soap Opera Tweeny BullCrap that made BILLIONS of dollars.

But after looking at your avatar I don't expect you to be able to under stand that..

Mindset
Originally posted by Flyattractor
What I was saying was that I wouldn't be surprised if this did well in theaters because it is a Twilight Version of Frankenstien. The correlation being that the Twi movies were giirlied up pices of Soap Opera Tweeny BullCrap that made BILLIONS of dollars.

But after looking at your avatar I don't expect you to be able to under stand that.. None of this makes sense.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Mindset
None of this makes sense. yeah I love you to Cuddles.

Lestov16
I was right bytches big grin

Stealth Moose
I heard this was doing poorly.

Kazenji
Originally posted by Lestov16
I was right bytches big grin

Of course it was going to be

and it had nothing to do with it trying to forgot about the original story which you ranted on about.

Lestov16
Allow me to enjoy my victory in peace

Kazenji
I reckon it might have had a chance for to be good, If someone like Del Toro or someone similar who has a love for the monster type movies.

NemeBro
Originally posted by Lestov16
Allow me to enjoy my victory in peace Why do you care?

Lestov16
Because it's the most important topic in America since the Civil Rights Movement. That's why, honky.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.