re: Well, the Oscars has cemented itself as a laughingstock

quote:

---

Abomination of the source. Not in any way a masterpiece.

---

That’s not really an argument—that’s just a strong opinion with no reasoning behind it.

If we’re going to be fair about Frankenstein, start with a simple question:
Is the job of an adaptation to copy the book… or to interpret it? If the answer is to copy it, does every single word of dialogue need be copied for it to reach your standard of a faithful adaptation?


Judging a film only by how closely it follows the text misses the point. The real test is whether it keeps the core idea intact—and it does:
• A man creates life
• Fails his responsibility
• Pays for it

That spine is still there.

They just take a different path:
• Book: Victor creates the Creature and abandons him immediately
• Movie: He tries to shape him into something human—and still fails

Different execution, same failure of the creator.

And the changes you’re pointing to aren’t random—they’re consistent shifts in emphasis:
• Elizabeth ? reworked relationship
• Creature ? more emotional, less calculated
• Violence ? more reactive than deliberate

That’s not “butchering the story”—that’s a different angle on the same moral problem.

Then you look at the film on its own terms:
• Strong acting
• Strong production design
• Clear tone

That alone rules out calling it an “abomination.”

You don’t have to like it. But if the argument is basically “it’s bad because it’s not the book,” that’s not real criticism—it’s just preference dressed up as fact.