SCREEN-L Archives

November 1994, Week 4


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
"Carmen Burton (AA)" <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 23 Nov 1994 13:56:42 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (27 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I don't think we should have to read to book to understand the film.  If
so the movie is wrong.  Though I would love to see a movie that was
really "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", I think it curious only. This new
Frankenstein film was not so close.  But it could have replaced the
original if it was great.  But I kept remembering the original story, why
did Branagh change this, and this, and this.
After seeing "Interview of the Vampire" I had the thought that perhaps
books written before the movies began so not be as same as books written
after the movies.  Probably most writers write for the movies even if
they don't expect the book to become a movie.  Rice did say this in a
interview with Larry King.
Any thoughts about this?
On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, dk62 wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> If you're wondering why Victor Frankenstein is not more overjoyed with his
> monster's accomplishments (his ability to talk, read, etc., as mentioned),
> try reading the book.
> Donna Harrington