Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
Why "I, Frankenstein" is going to suck the balls of a homeless man
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.
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.
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.
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.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 24th, 2013 02:45 PM
