It's Murdoch's baby. It's pretty much sports, tits and racism. Y'know: British culture.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx1m...

The S*n is the only loo paper that comes with excrement printed on both sides. It is designed that way to convince the hard of thinking that they are capable of wiping their own backsides

Never ceases to amaze me how people miss meaning completely. Not as if lacking subtlety makes any difference. Starship Troopers (film version) was as subtle as a brick to the face, and it was still misinterpreted by so many people. Maybe most of these people have no actual exposure to the stories.

One wonders whether, upon watching / reading the story, they realise they have been terribly misinformed.

The book, the classic movie, that time he met Alvin and the Chipmunks…

Media literacy is dead.

They obviously learned everything about Frankenstein from Homer Simpson's "Everybody Hates Ned Flanders" song.

Even the old school horror movie is sympathetic to Frankenstein. He's a tragic figure in those just way dumber than Shelley's version.

I hope this one will be as good as Nosferatu. I am looking forward to Del Torro's version.

These people know Frankenstein the way Nancy Mace knows The Scarlet Letter

Why the fuck is "Mexican Director" in red fonts? Is the moron who wrote this surprised that Mexicans can make movies?

It's a link to further articles about del Toro. They don't use his name as he's named earlier in the piece and newspaper writing style doesn't like to restate someone's name in a second mention.

Probably a hyperlink

One of the best trilogies of action movies ever made is literally called "The Mexico Trilogy" by Robert Rodriguez

I don't know that Snowflake School, but I'd say they're good at teaching literature.

Some of these so called journalists have never actually read a novel I swear.

Have they never seen Frankenstein? Heck, even Young Frankenstein?

An "I hated Rage Against The Machine after they got all political" type review?

fucking hell. FUCKING HELL.

The monster being the sympathetic one isn't even subtext, it's just text

conservatives assume every 'classic' horror story must be about how scary the monster is, apparently they're stuck imagining a past where all art must be boring and straightforward to conform to their worldview

I always thought this book was about 💩 and neglectful parenting. The son/creation was no more monstrous than his father/creator. At least I have read the book. Most of the complainers probably haven’t.

That review (from the independent) gets even weirder. They admit it's closer to the source novel then other films but somehow imply it's more wrong to have followed the novel rather than those other films. www.independent.co.uk/arts-enterta...

... Yes, how dare an adaptation of the novel ignore an affectionate parody. ... How did no one catch this?!

You have to try and 'win' cinema by dominating over and erasing the existence of all other interpretations

somehow they skipped over edward scissorhands which made the theme obtuse proof

Are general audiences actually expected to have watched all those films or was that the reviewer talking about themselves in the thirdish person ? “I do not like the movie because I was expecting a different one “. No one who has not gone to film school will have watched that list of films.

Followed.

yes, the story is about being different and outcast. The story is a metaphor.

They haven’t read the book, or even watched The Munsters.

Or even Transylvania 6-5000

I hope the „Puttin’ on the Ritz” scene is still in tho

The bad guys always believe anyone who isn’t “attractive” must be destroyed That ugly = a creature fit only to be destroyed That different = evil

Equivalent to Republicans identifying with Darth Vader in ICE recruitnent videos.

I mean that excerpt does indicate the reviewer might not know the source material, but does the reviewer actually claim it "ruined" the movie? Cause from the excerpt I can't say they did.

Time for my signature response to this sort of thing. Sigh. Jesus Christ.

Grok - is this true?

No. Nothing is true, but everything is permitted.

Legit wondering if people read anymore.

Frankenstein is multiple dead body parts, stitched together and brought to life...with the brain of ONE individual. Meaning that individual does not recognize one single bit of their own body, and is an undead brought back to life not of its own free will. I absolutely feel bad for the Monster.

The book is 258 pages. Just fucking read it. Goddamn, read books, it’s not hard and it’s great fun.

It was written over a weekend to win a drunken bet, not too hard to get through in a night. 😄

bizarrely, the reviewer knows and understands this, but insists that the new adaptation must make the monster evil because that's what other adaptations did

Snowflake students claim that Dracula is just a misunderstood landowner

That's the opening to Love at First Bite. Kicked out of his own castle by the commies.

i once wrote a paper during one of my degree programs, i forget which one program, & which specific class, hah, maybe one of the english classes, about frankenstein versus frankenstein's monster and public perception where i polled the 30 students in class as part of it. their understanding was BAD.

"but ChatGPT said...!"

I've never even seen the movies or read the book, and even I know what it's about. It's baked into culture at this point. These people aren't stupid, they're trying to destroy empathy for those that are different.

At first I thought this was fake, but then I saw your account was the one that reposted it. Now I just hope that it was satirical or like... an April Fools joke, or some other context I'm missing.

Time is a flat circle

This guy is from the UK Independent - I’m wondering if he’s seen the National’s version which to be very like Del Toro’s

I feel stupid bc I didn’t recognize that Poor Things is a Frankenstein retelling and that’s bc the person who revived her TREATED HER LIKE A PERSON!

How do people miss that? It’s clear even in most of the adaptations. In the book it’s very clear.

Because none of them have read the book, they just remember that there’s a horror movie with a monster

Yes, in the book the doctor is the true villain. In the old movie it was the monster. Guess which version most of the people that complain have actually interacted with.

Going to need to watch this and then maybe Gods and Monsters to make it a double feature of "not the monster you thought it was"

He IS the victim! The monster didn't ask to be made!

I mean that kid did not ask to be murdered the book makes it really clear that the creature is the most rational actor in the story and he kills a lot of people.

I looked at the headline you posted and thought it was an onion article (honestly. I read it and the source 4 or 5 times). This isn’t university level English lit we are talking about…this was covered in middle school.

The reading comprehension of “anti woke” morons is equivalent to trump’s luscious head of hair

This is concerning like my children under 9 and 5 not recognizing that Galinda is the bad guy in Wicked.

Someone give the sun a sedagive

Does this look like a victim to the Woke Left??

This a nice boy. This is a good boy. This is a mother's angel

The horror is in how humans treat scary-looking folk, not in how scary-looking Frankenstein is.

I remember seeing this back then and I simply died, Mary Shelley was clearly a woke sensitive snowflake 💀

Difference between knowledge and wisdom: Knowledge is knowing that Frankenstein wasn't the monster. Wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein was the monster.

Counterpoint: Abbott and Costello didn't meet some nerd ass doctor.

Lou would never lie to me

It makes sense for the monster to take his father’s name and thus also be a Frankenstein. So the monster is Frankenstein and Frankenstein is also the monster.

I've also been saying this for years now. Thank you.

I'd say, having read the book, they're both monsters, of a different sort. One is a monster by arrogance, the other is doomed to be a monster.

No, you don't understand. Victor Frankenstein is the DOCTOR. And I? I am THE MONSTER for being this pedantic.

I feel like Mary Shelley's final note should be included in this discussion.

No offense to Mary Shelley. I kinda feel Herman stresses the point and helps the distinction. While Frankenstein makes sense as a proper surname (And name in general for lack of a better one) the TV character inspired by him helps to humanize him further I feel.

People think Frankenstein is just the narrator from Monster Mash and all the spooky guys want his electronic zaps so they can party etc

It reminded me of that frase "Intelligence is knowing Frankenstein isn't the monster, wisdom is knowing Frankenstein is the monster."

Frankenstein's monster was indeed a victim, also a victimizer, but that's pretty common in abuse cases unfortunately so that still checks out...

First thing I thought of was your post.

Christ. This is almost too close to the beginning of a novel I shelved. Maybe I should dust it off and finish it.

"The movie keeps referring to the SCIENTIST as 'Frankenstein!'"

"When will the left stop whining about media literacy?"

A movie by Guillermo del Toro about a misunderstood monster? I don’t understand what movie they were expecting the man who gave us two Hellboy movies and The Shape of Water to make, other than literally this.

Tell me you haven't read the book without telling me you haven't read the book.

I think the right wing is oversimplifying, but yes, the monster was a victim.

The right wing has a mentality that cannot grasp the concept that monsters are created by worse monsters, and are thus victims as well as their own victims. This was the whole f---ing point of the book.

The right wing thinks sympathy for the devil is an evil philosophy and one should not seek to understand those who do wrong, and prevent others from being like them, as they (falsely) think you can only blame one person for any problem, and you certainly can't put a little additional blame on all.

Conservatives having the media literacy of a goldfish with a head injury is such a well documented phenomena that you can set your clock by it. Anything beyond the most basic surface level reading of any media is simply beyond them.

Same with their understanding of ethics, sociology, psychology and morality. They can't consider more than one thing at a time.

Anything more than one degree of separation between cause and effect breaks them somehow. A->B->C but they'll never understand how A causes C

The stupid is so strong it has to be parody....... right?

Wait until they find out that one of the things that happened in the book was that a priest elicited a false confession of murder from an innocent woman by threatening excommunication and eternal damnation. "So the Church and the patriarchy are the bad guys now? WOKE NONSENSE!!"

The monster also sheds a tear for the plight of the native Americans. Totally woke.

100% and it's not just the book, is it? Karloff specifically seems quite far from an "agent of evil and chaos" - where did "evil" come from? Mad he was created sure, but evil?

Even 'mad' is stretching things, since the first person he killed, William, was an accident caused by his abnormal size. After that the other two murders were calculated and precise. Henry, to convince Victor to make a bride, and Elizabeth, as both punishment and provocation to further that act.

My takeaway was that Frankenstein and his monster have the same narcissist asshole personality, and the commentary was that Frankenstein (playing God) made life in his own image and HATED it. Mary Shelley was a frikkin' genius.

In other news, The Sun is still trash 🙃

These dolts must be told there's a huge difference between the book and the Hollywood-sized monster

Even the 1931 Boris Karloff movie depicted the monster in a sympathetic light. He begins his life with an innocent and childlike mind, is subjected to experiences that terrify him and people who fear his appearance, and only harms others out of self defense and/or ignorance. He never had a chance.

Ah, right.

I don't think people are really going to notice that this headline isn't even about "modern arts are degenerate and stupid" so much as it's instead subtly trying to parallel all socially ostracised subcultures with an "evil monster"

Nah this tracks. If you recall that we live in the timeline where people think Lolita is a love story, then it all makes sense

When I read Lolita it was all there. Every damned self justification and excuse every damned child abuser uses, complete with victim blaming. Brilliantly written book, but as a survivor of childhood abuse, it made me ill.

Right there in the opening fucking paragraph. "Ladies and gentlemen of the goddamn jury." Nabokov was an epic troll.

As someone playing a necromancer in a D&D campaign, yes. I am playing the monster, I am Frankenstein! My "monsters" are victims of my spellcraft. But on a more serious note. It's actually a interesting throught. How one would have to adapt to appendages that are not their own original.

Afterall "The Monster" (Hell lets just call him Herman) Is a mismash of various others attached together, and this brain having come from an entirely different person who makes the central consciousness of this amalgamation of dead people. Imagining waking up in a body not your own, I don't have to

Herman is an innocent victim. He (hell potentially she) is a victim to "Dr" Frankenstein's attempts to play god.

Do you think some of these people ever wish they could actually read?

Absolutely unsurprising that a writer for the Sun doesn't read.

cause you know reading a book and understanding what those words mean is too hard for most people..

that old Frankenstein tweet went so viral that I nearly lost my entire mind arguing with a deluge of ding-dongs who insisted the monster is the villain, can't wait to do this all over again 7 years later

Now you have a new problem because the idiot you retweeted does not seem to have noticed that the article he clipped from discusses all this in depth and makes comparisons to other movies. Or he knew that and had books to sell so decided to be that guy.

Deluge of ding-dongs

um actually _frankenstein_ is the monster so actually he *is* the villain

I learned that in high school, and I didn't exactly live in a great school district.

LOL @ "deluge of ding-dongs"

people argued with me for years about this. acting like the monster was a real guy they knew

The Creature only killed three people in the book; William, Henry, and Elizabeth. Also William's death is described more as an accident than an intentional murder, although the Creature did take pleasure in it after the fact, knowing the sorrow it would bring to Victor.

This is serious that monster killed my grandma and pushed my dog

r.i.p. to your grandma but the monster is different.

This is very insensitive to my dog

oh shiiiiit this was you! lmao that was so insane

How many of these people loved “Joker”?

All afternoon I’ve been reading reactions that make me rub my temples raw - and then I remembered this whole deal and my temples started to have phantom pains of remembrance of these reactions.

I still don’t even buy that this is “people have seen too many movie adaptations” because the monster is generally at least some level of sympathetic/is portrayed as a creation of a far worse person

Frankenstein was fictional. Frank N. Furter was real

Only when he wanted to be. 😄

Emphasis on *was*, but only because of Riffraff's laser beam of pure antimatter!

I understand Taylor Swift has been all over the news lately because she misidentified the monster with the doctor’s name?

I get the distinct feeling most people’s idea of Frankenstein comes from a third or fourth regurgitation through some form of popular culture. The one with De Niro is probably the most faithful modern adaptation (aside from, it sounds like Del Toro’s) and I’m pretty sure no one watched it.

Its why most people think the monster is called frankenstein and not frankenstein's monster

That reply lmao

People who have never read a single book say dumb stuff.

bsky.app/profile/nail...

I never read the book or watched any adaption of that story to know this? One must be sleeping under a rock to not know this

I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the failed English student.

Wait until they find out a woman wrote the book. "Typical."

I just looked up the original review, and the funniest thing is the guy still gives the movie 3 stars.

He was really impressed by the car chase scene, and the big explosion at the end. 😄

the only thing this is doing is getting me more hyped about the release

Ah yes, as Frankenstein was one of few novels I actually enjoyed during my curriculum at school (the other one is Faust I) I can very clearly say... These journalists need to fucking read before they write. They literally described the first part of the book when complaining here.

These people are really telling on themselves and their parenting

Absolutely stunned this has to keep being said.

Also, like 90% of all Frankenstein adaptations are like this.