This was more or less my reaction to seeing the classic Universal Frankenstein movie. I mean, I feel like a total snob saying this, but I read the book first?? And it was way different??
I tend to roll my eyes at people who go to films and insist "the book was different!" as though a slavish faithfulness to the source material is the sole measure of quality for an adaptation. There are, I'm sure, plenty of adaptations that do follow their source material but feel somehow lifeless onscreen. And I know I've gotten frustrated by filmmakers who carefully follow all the factual details of a book--plot points, character descriptions, dialogue choices--but miss the greater emotional core. But those old Universal films are a whole other issue, right? They seem, to me, only mildly interested in their source material and delight in arbitrarily changing up characters and events for reasons I really can't quite figure out.
I am frustrated that I can't really appreciate the Frankenstein movie! I mean, yes, from a cinematography point of view it did a lot of interesting expressionist stuff, I get it, but story wise I was just . . . super bored with it. But there must be merit to the story, right? That's why it's a classic, right? It's kind of nagging at me that I wrote this parody of the movie into the script without being able to fully articulate my dislike for the film, so I'll turn the question to you guys--are you a fan of the Universal horror films? If so, what draws you to them?
Also, just tossing it out there--is it just me, or was it kinda quiet around here--or at least on the forum--this past week? Is there something going on? Is it finals week already?