[neverending]

Originally Posted by alkytrio666

Yes, it did do all that. However, it also obliviated an originally humanistic and mature commentary on mankind and replaced it with a monster movie armed only with the intention of a "monster bad, man good" mindset.
Well, this complete mis-translation was an enormous success, and one that may have been responsible for an immediate stereotype that horror movies could not bare any kind of morale on life but instead were only created with the intention of showering their audiences with an appropriate amount of shock value followed by an inevitable victory by man.

I sincerely enjoy James Whale's Frankenstein, but its complete disregard for the intention of its source material has always been a turn-off for me, and when it is pitted against a movie like Pulp Fiction, it falls short.

If this were King Kong, things would be different.

With all due respect, I belive you have completely misread the film. Karloff's monster is clearly shown as a tortured soul and a sympathetic character. We are not lead to root for the lumbering mob, but for the poor confused creature who has no idea how to function in the world.

I'm sorry, but I COMPLETELY disagree with your analysis and the legacy the film left us with. In fact I find it to be exactly OPPOSITE what you say. In later Universal Frankenstein films the creature was demoted to a mere thug, but in the first three, it's the monster we root for. The Dr. even says this- that he considers the creature to be a man.

In the book Frankenstein hates his creation and wants only to kill it. He never sees his creation as a man. This is, indeed a basic difference in the book, but I believe it results in exactly to opposite effect on the audience than you describe.