Why is Dracula true to the book, but not Frankenstein?

[Hellstromm, Son of Satan]

I mean, the image we have of Dracula in popular culture is very much how he is depicted in the book. The original Bela Lugosi movie was very true to the book, and most depictions of Dracula are more or less accurate to the source material.

But the image we have of Frankenstein in popular culture is NOT how he is depicted in the original book. The original Boris Karloff movie was nothing like the book, and thus most depictions of Frankenstein don't follow the original book.

Why do you think is that?

Why is Dracula close to the way Bram Stoker imagined him, but Frankenstein is nothing like Mary Shelley imagined him?

[GLKnight83]

Because one is an alluring concept of sexuality and it's inconsolable destructive influence on the unwillling, and the other is Dracula...

Seriously, there is more going on in Frankenstein, that people rarely notice, than in Dracula. To wit, one is very dramatic and science-based (Frankenstein), and the other is MELOdramatic and supernaturally based. Frankenstein is in actuallity a Golem, with roots in Judaic folklore, and the vampire is influenced by Arabic and slavic folklore. There are just too many reasons to truely explain why.

Although, my favorite explanation is "SCIENCE IS HAPPENING!!!"

I CAN go on for many pages about the difference and dichotomy of both of them, but I WON'T. This is what I get for Anthropology as my only real hobby...

[TrumanGrace]

Because Dracula is a convincing monster on his own.

Frankenstein's monster becomes somewhat sympathetic in the story.

[Sutibaru]

I do not know about you, but there is so many adaptations of Frankenstein. And when I say Frankenstein I mean the novel, not the monster. There are a few quite faithful adaptations if you look for them. It's been years since I read the novel though. But who are you to talk about the monster not being faithfully adapted in media when you cannot even call him the right name? Frankenstein was his creator, not the monster itself.

[Kyutetsuki]

Originally Posted by Hellstromm, Son of Satan

most depictions of Frankenstein

That's it right there, and you're doing it yourself. Most people barely know the monster is actually not named Frankenstein.

The monster is just The Monster - A more accurate thing to say would be "The monster of dr. Frankenstein" or "Frankenstein's Monster"

[mecham]

I thought this was worth mentioning, but I did remember seeing a version of the movie Frankenstein that closely resembled the book.

This version included the actor whom play Gilderoy Lockheart in Harry Potter 2 (Can't remember his name) and I thought it was the closest thing I ever saw.

Young Frankenstein makes me laugh.

[TrumanGrace]

Originally Posted by mecham

I thought this was worth mentioning, but I did remember seeing a version of the movie Frankenstein that closely resembled the book.

This version included the actor whom play Gilderoy Lockheart in Harry Potter 2 (Can't remember his name) and I thought it was the closest thing I ever saw.

Young Frankenstein makes me laugh.

Kenneth Branagh. A great play actor, and a good film actor when the role requires incredible exaggeration. However, he doesn't know subtlety very well. I haven't seen that version, so don't know how closely it resembles the book.

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by Sutibaru

But who are you to talk about the monster not being faithfully adapted in media when you cannot even call him the right name? Frankenstein was his creator, not the monster itself.

So the trend continues, Hellstromm attempts to pass himself off as a horror expert and in doing so only reveals how little he knows about the subject. That's one of the most common misconceptions people have about "Frankenstein". I wonder what, if anything Hellstromm will have to say in his defense. Probably nothing, as usual though.

[morwalugi]

Apparently naming the monster after its creator was a common mistake
pretty well from the beginning

" In the novel, the creature has no name?a symbol of his parentlessness and lack of human sense of self and identity. He does call himself, when speaking to his creator, Victor Frankenstein, the "Adam of your labours". He is also variously referred to as a "creature," "fiend," "the d?mon," "wretch," "zombie," "devil," "being," and "ogre" in the novel.[1]

The monster's namelessness became part of the stage tradition as Mary Shelley's story was adapted into serious and comic plays in London, Paris, and France during the decades after the novel's first appearance. Mary Shelley herself attended a performance of Presumption, the first successful stage adaptation of her novel. "The play bill amused me extremely, for in the list of dramatic personae came, _______ by Mr T. Cooke,? she wrote her friend Leigh Hunt. ?This nameless mode of naming the unnameable is rather good.?[2]

Into this vacuum, it is understandable that the name of the creator?Frankenstein?would soon be used to name the creation. That mistake was made within the first decade after the novel was published, but it became cast in concrete after the story was popularized in the famous 1930s Universal film series starring Boris Karloff. The film was based largely on a play by Peggy Webling, performed in London in 1927.[3] Curiously, Webling's Frankenstein actually does give his creature his name. The Universal film reverted to the empty cypher, however: the film's credits list the character Karloff plays as a series of question marks. Nevertheless, the creature soon enough became best known in the popular imagination as "Frankenstein"."

Wikipedia

[Xanderfox]

The reason is simple, Hollywood produced the pop culture images of Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster (Frankenstein is the creator not the monster). The same way most people who claim to be vampires use the Anne Rice version as opposed to the walking blood drinking corpses of the original legends. The Monster is in many ways the victim, and his motivation for wrecking Frankenstein's life is revenge rather than blind malice. The monsters first victim dies by accident and he feels great guilt. When the doctor refuses to complete the Bride, that's when the monster kills out of malice. he seeks to ruin the doctor's life for creating him, and his misery.

[budthedog]

Originally Posted by TF-Viewer

So the trend continues, Hellstromm attempts to pass himself off as a horror expert and in doing so only reveals how little he knows about the subject. That's one of the most common misconceptions people have about "Frankenstein". I wonder what, if anything Hellstromm will have to say in his defense. Probably nothing, as usual though.

You know, I don't think he's trying to pass himself off as a horror expert, I think he's just making a bunch of Halloween themed threads because *glances at calender* oh, it's October.

He's been quite successful at that, but people are constantly getting on his case for not knowing everything they do about this subject. Lay off, guys. Be less hostile and angry and pitchforky.

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by budthedog

You know, I don't think he's trying to pass himself off as a horror expert, I think he's just making a bunch of Halloween themed threads because *glances at calender* oh, it's October.

He's been quite successful at that, but people are constantly getting on his case for not knowing everything they do about this subject. Lay off, guys. Be less hostile and angry and pitchforky.

The fact that it is October may have inspired him to create so many threads on the subject of horror, that is a likely assumption. However, the content of his posts in those threads suggests that he believes himself to possess an abundance of knowledge on the subject of horror, going so far as to "correct" others in discussions about horror movies. However such "corrections" were actually nothing of the sort, they only served to reveal a lack of understanding of the subject matter on his part, or at the very least a lack of any research into the "facts" he was trying to correct others on.

Under other circumstances I would agree with your last suggestion, but since this thread is about Dracula and "Frankenstein" it only seems proper that we form an angry mob, arm ourselves with torches and pitchforks and harass someone.