Previously, and pertinently: Questions Brought On By The “I, Frankenstein” Trailer.
Original Question: Why would someone say “Frankenstein. The rumors are true” about a Frankenstein monster? There are no Frankenstein rumors; it was a book. Frankenstein isn’t like vampires; there aren’t old Central European legends about errant Frankensteins living in the woods and hating gargoyles. There aren’t any Frankenstein rumors. There is a Frankenstein novel. The character saying “The rumors are true” does as as he literally pulls a copy of Frankenstein off of a bookshelf.
Status: Answered. The novel does not exist in-universe (EVEN THOUGH THE CREDITS OFFER “SPECIAL THANKS TO MARY SHELLEY”); the book is the actual Dr. Frankenstein’s actual medical diary. Okay. The movie (pretty accurately) dispenses with the plot of Frankenstein in about two minutes; then it gets to the gargoyles. So far, so gargoyles. This one was on me; I was too quick to get nervous and I did not trust the filmmakers to take me on a journey.
Original Question: Why is a feud between Frankenstein(s) and gargoyles being presented as one that should be familiar to viewers? I could buy that in Underworld. Vampires and werewolves have sort of generally evolved as being opposed to one another. But to my knowledge, there is no quarrel between Frankenstein(s) and gargoyles. They are not natural enemies.
Status: Answered, trickily. The fight was never between Frankensteins and gargoyles at all; the fight was between gargoyles and demons, who barely made an appearance in the trailer. Frankenstein had to decide if he would help the gargoyles or not; he was the deciding factor in the eternal struggle between demons and architecture.
Original Question: If there is no point during the movie where Aaron Eckhart stops to correct someone, “Actually, Frankenstein is the name of the scientist, technically I am Frankenstein’s monster,” the screenwriters have missed a solid joke opportunity.
Status: This was not actually a question, but I am hardly going to accuse myself. Partially answered; at one point Bill Nighy refers to Aaron Eckhart as “Frankenstein’s monster,” which I can only assume was a half-hearted nod to the two pedants who might consider seeing this movie. The rest of the time he was referred to as Frankenstein, except for when the High Queen of the Gargoyles (who was, pleasingly, referred to as “The High Queen of the Gargoyles” instead of her name early and often) named him “Adam.” It almost seemed to turn into a first-name-Adam/last-name-Frankenstein situation, which makes no one happy.
Original Question: I have never believed in anything half so strongly as Aaron Eckhart believes in the line “There isn’t. Unless you could animate that corpse.”
Status: Fully answered; they did animate those corpses. They even had little dealies on the front of their corpse barrels that said “CORPSE REANIMATION” and a little percentage that ticked from 00% COMPLETE to 01% COMPLETE when they started recharging the corpses with…I forget. A lot of electricity, I bet.
Original Question: If the television show Gargoyles taught me nothing else, it is that gargoyles cannot fly while in stone form, much less change back and forth from stone to flesh willy-nilly. What gargoyle continuity is this film operating under?
Status: NOT ANSWERED IN THE SLIGHTEST; THIS WAS BOTH EGREGIOUS AND INSULTING. There was no discernable difference in strength or stamina between each gargoyle’s stone and flesh form. They were equally capable of movement and flight in each, WHICH IS RIDICULOUS. In fact, if anything, it’s absurd that they would ever transform into their fleshly forms, because their stone forms appear to be more impervious to pain. There is literally no advantage in switching out of stone form, ever.
Original Question: I have no problem with Frankenstein speaking in full sentences; that is an artistic license I am perfectly willing to grant. That is not a question. I just wanted to make my feelings on the matter known.
Status: Right ho.
Original Question: It is clear that the gargoyles (led in some form by Bill Nighy?) are enemies of humanity, but the sleeping army of “tens of thousands” of other Frankensteins would “spell doom for all humanity,” which means they should be on the same side. Why they are they shown fighting?
Status: Explained: I was wrong. Bill Nighy wasn’t a gargoyle. Bill Nighy wants to fill all those Frankensteins up with demons because Frankenstein bodies don’t have souls (except don’t worry, Frankenstein I gets a soul. Have you seen season 7 of Buffy? Basically like how Spike gets his), so that’s why they’re fighting.
Original Question: Why can all of the Frankensteins fly
Status: SOME BULLSHIT. Those weren’t Frankensteins at all! You never even see the army of Frankensteins come to life, which is SOME BULLSHIT. Those were a bunch of demons, who can fly/crack human spines with a single hand/have super speed, and yet never bring a single weapon to a fight against gargoyles. Oh my God, it was like watching the Battle of the Somme vs. Iwo Jima. It was so one-sided. The demons just kept pouring over the walls in dinner jackets with literally zero weapons to fight a bunch of massive gargoyles wielding double battle-axes. They didn’t bring anything. Not even guns! NOT EVEN GUNS. Not even shields, or a switchblade! Just their own useless bodies. SOME. BULLSHIT.
Original Question: You will never convince me that the girl in this movie is not Lena Headey. This is also not a question.
Status: It wasn’t her, but the other girl was Eowyn! She was…a real disappointment. Turns out being Queen of the Gargoyles gives you exactly none powers, and you can get kidnapped by a single mooky demon, despite the fact that all demons can basically be neutralized by a love tap from a blessed nail clipper.
New Question: Why did Frankenstein have stitches all over his face like someone sewed eight heads together? Frankenstein just had one head. One head, one skin, one face.
New Question: At one point, a dying female gargoyle implored Aaron Eckhart not to help her survive because her gargoyle partner had just died/Ascended, and that they would finally be allowed to date one another in Heaven, even though dating had been forbidden to them on earth.
What
Tags: gargoyles, i frankenstein, important questions, ive been watching a lot of movies in 3d lately, movies, questions, so far so gargoyles, special thanks to mary shelley
Related Posts
This sounds like the most glorious watch-with-drunk-friends film EVER
I eagerly await its arrival on Redbox.
THANKS MARY SHELLEY, I OWE YOU ONE
My main takeaway here is that heaven is full of lesbian gargoyles in love
no no it was a boy gargoyle, he was like her FIGHTING partner
OH. Okay, well, that’s okay too I guess
::goes to hell::
…he was the deciding factor in the eternal struggle between demons and architecture.
I just nearly spat coffee all over my desk, thank you.
I’m going to spend the afternoon deciding which side I am on in this epic battle of the ages.
“I wanna be on the Wright side of history!”
“You’ll Pei for that!”
I’m giving you a thousand thumbs up because your punning has me Gwynn-ing ear to ear (John Gwynn, noted 18th century architect).
“This is the Mies Van Der Road to the hell!”
“Daniel, Burn ‘Em!”
OH MY GOD
“Gehry-dy to rumble!”
“You’ll be Saarinen!”
I’ll back Zaha Hadid against any demons the universe can conjure. For the zombie apocalypse, you want Eero Saarinen, but given the relative versatility and dinner jacketed-flair of the demons, we’re going to have to go with an architectural hero with a little more dynamism.
I will live with this line written on my brain for the next month, probably.
Why would you have a problem with Frankenstein(‘s monster) speaking in full sentences? He’s a pompous arse who likes to talk at length about Milton and morality. I think that’s why Frankenstein (‘s creator) keeps running away from him.
We should be friends…
oh hush before I accuse you of being someone who deserves the name Bernard, you are perfectly aware that none of the film adaptations have ever depicted the creature as speaking in full sentences and thus it is movie-canon that he does not possess full powers of articulate speech, BERNARD.
Mallory, have you read/seen Stoppard’s Arcadia? Because if so, I think all Bernards are like that Bernard.
Tell that to Robert DeNiro! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pkAiQctFos
I think Mallory is in denial about the existence of that film; this is at least the second time it has been pointed out.
maybe the best insult ever?
It sounds very Eustace Scrubb.
But isn’t this movie explicitly establishing itself as following Book-Canon rather than Movie-Canon? This question is really important to me and yes, this is the hill I am choosing to die on.
No, this movie does away with the book entirely!
Gotcha!
I know this isn’t a film, but the Wishbone version had him making long speeches with non-green skin!
Damn, just realizing that if all the Wishbone interpretations were as faithful to the book as this one, I could have skipped a lot of reading in high school…
And by “faithful” I mean, you know, minus the whole talking dog part. (Sidenote, it always kind of weirded me out to watch the lady leads in love with a puppy.)
See: Why I never actually read all of The Tempest* in my Humanities class senior year. (“I saw it on Wishbone. Close enough.”)
*I may have a degree in English Literature but I basically don’t like any non-history-or-tragedy Shakespeare.
There is literally no advantage in switching out of stone form, ever.
What about for sexing?
Does the ‘no dating’ rule mean no sexing, too?
Also… stone penis sex, hehehe.
Something something ROCK HARD something
Demons vs. architecture reminded me of angels in the architecture, and now I’m listening to Paul Simon. So all in all, this article has set me down a pretty good little path.
Disney Chanel “Gargoyles” means EVERYTHING to me. It is the best animated series ever made. Full stop. And I am boycotting I, Frankenstein for their absurd depiction of these majestic, deeply philosophical and heroically tortured beings. Take THAT big Hollywood studio. That’s right. Bet you never saw this coming. How are your ticket sales looking now, punk?
::puts on Batman: The Animated Series t-shirt::prepares to fight you::
I’m not gonna fight you on this one because, to be fair, Batman:The Animated Series is my tie for number #1 but it was only my anger at Hollywood big shots with their nonsensical Gargoyle/Frankenstein’s monster plots that made me speak in haste and commit such a grave error. Forgive me.
Okay, good, because GARGOYLES is like my #1.5 after B:TAS and the fight would have been one of those tear-filled rage fights where neither side wants to fight but they have to because of HONOR.
But I totally get what you mean. Any movie that sullies the good name/concept of GARGOYLES should be cast into the eternal darkness where their is waling and gnashing of teeth.
I think this question can be safely settled by the amount of Mark Hamil present in either series.
Plus the fact that several scenes from B:TAS were drawn on black paper, to save the animators from having to fill in the oppressive blackness of many of the wide shots. Batman: too much brooding for regular paper!
I remember having a crush on the lead dude Gargoyle.
this is an insanely good opinion about Gargoyles
No you are wrong Gargoyles is the best animated series ever made LAST CENTURY.
Avatar: The Last Airbender is the best animated series ever made.
Special thanks to Mary Shelley is the new No disrespect to Ben Affleck. I’m going to say it as much as possible.
HANG ON. So the demons are already super fast & can kill humans in a trice? Where’s the advantage in putting them in reanimated corpses?
Would the reanimated corpses somehow figure out to carry a gun to a gargoyle fight?
Would being encased in a corpse make the gargoyles unable to recognize them as demons?
Do meat-bags act as armor against gargoyle axes?
How would a demon in a reanimated corpse avoid cracking his own spine every time he scratched his back?
Yes, I am also confused! Are the demons in demon-y form, or are they in the bodies of Frankensteins?
OH, SO, basically, every time you kill a demon its demon soul gets ‘descended’ back to hell and it’s trapped there, so the super-Frankensteins need to get possessed by the hell-bound demons who don’t have bodies yet.
…I am still confused. They inhabit the bodies after they’re killed in demon form?
Does it… just take too long to re-gain a demon body when you’re a soulless demon intent on getting back into that hopeless battle ASAP?
Sounds like, if I was a deadened demon, I’d be all, ‘yeah, you should save that reanimated corpse for the next guy? I’ve… got some things to do down in hell? Catch ya on the flip?’
Just a guess, but I would have thought the stitches were because the body had at one point been dead and perhaps needed to be repaired before reanimation?
But not on his face! It is not film-canon for Frankenstein to have a patchwork-quilt face.
Or perhaps he died in some kind of explosion that ripped his face apart?
Or his body went to a medical college where they cut apart his face for a lesson on skull anatomy?
skiing accident
Yet another reason I will never again ski.
Stitches all over his face.
This is because a new brain had to be inserted, and the good doctor didn’t actually know the best route to get a brain in there, so he just kinda… opened the whole head and shoved it in there. That the monster’s face still looks that good (so good…) is a miracle of fine stitching and tailoring.
It is entirely possible I am thinking of Young Frankenstein and not the original story, but as long as we’re throwing gargoyle continuity out the window, why not Frankenstein’s, too?
Maybe the face stitches are just for decorative purposes, like the Igors of Discworld.
I had no intention of seeing this movie because I’ve seen Underworld twice and I can’t handle any more blue-green, but then I saw that GIF of the Spanish trailer. Typical stuff, for those who haven’t seen it — just Frankenbiz per usual, an explosion, and then, dramatically, the title. The Spanish title is, of course, YO, FRANKENSTEIN. And that fills me with such irrational happiness that I feel like I owe the creators money?
For reference: http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2014/01/i-franke…
Further speculation: his abs are stitched on.
There was a running commentary during the movie-watching experience immediately after Aaron Eckhart uttered this line, mere seconds after he’d taken off his shirt so we can see his perfectly-chiseled torso:
“I am a patchwork of ten different men.”
OH ARE YOU NOW
“Do you see this symmetry? This symmetry is the result of hour upon hour of gravedigging.”
“This face is a marvel of patchwork from TEN DIFFERENT SUPERMODELS. Do you know how hard it is to find ONE supermodel corpse in the 17th century, much less ten?”
“Why, this cleft chin wasn’t even available among the corpses. He had to knock someone off in an alleyway to give me this magnificent chin.”
“No effort was spared. His stitching might make obvious scars, but do you note how my skin tone is exactly the same from section to section? That, madam, is the work of a master.”
“And my nipples! Yea, God, my nipples. If ever a man worked harder to bestow a pair of perfectly symmetrical nipples upon the monster he was animating, I should like to hear him say it so I may call him a liar.”
“Why are you talking like that?”
“I AM A MONSTER I KNOW NOT OF THIS WORLD. I’m pretty sexy, though, right? I’m just like an ordinary man who has lots of scars. A really hot ordinary man with a cleft chin and angst.”
You can’t tell me that dying in order to continue your relationship with a gargoyle isn’t romantic
You can't tell me that dying in order to continue your relationship with a gargoyle isn't romantic
Adam, though. “Please, Doctor Frankenstein was my father. Call me Adam”. “This is my monster, Adam Frankenstein”.
Um…how did "Adam" Frankenstein end up with a soul in the last five minutes of the movie? He didn't have one a few scenes before when he caused ?Gabriel? (gargoyle played by dude from the Die Hard set in Russia) to "ascend."