# Why did they add the abnormal/normal brain thing in the Frankenstein movie **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 27, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151 "2012-02-27T15:07:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/21 "2012-02-27T18:13:20Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > “But . . . her name was _Ivory!_” Obviously, she was no longer 99 and 44/100% pure. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/22 "2012-02-27T18:24:00Z")
> [@wedgehed](#): > > Well, it does show that a mad scientist is only as effective as his hunchbacked assistant. > > And that should be a lesson to us all. > > 🙂 What hunchback? ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/23 "2012-02-27T18:27:24Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Obviously, she was no longer 99 and 44/100% pure. _Ha!_ ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/24 "2012-02-27T19:05:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I dunno - maybe it was with the assumption that if the brain had been normal, the monster’s murderousness would have been inexplicable to the audience? In a similar vein, I never understood the whole “protomatter” thing in _Star Trek III_, some doofy wrinkle thrown in to explain why the Genesis Planet was disintegrating, as opposed to it being just, say, an overall design failure or the result of the torpedo being detonated inside a nebula instead of on a planet as intended. > > Heck, I’d like there to be a organ-transplant horror movie with a twist - sure, the replacement hands were donated by an executed criminal, but the _real_ reason the recipient became a serial killer is that he was one all along - that in fact his original hands were lost when feeding an early victim’s body into a wood-chipper. For Star Trek - they used ‘protomatter’ as a cheat - it was known to be unstable - the book explains it better - it was a design flaw and would have caused the same instablity had the device been used as intended. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/25 "2012-02-27T19:37:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, it can be argued that the monster shows more soul in the book than his maker does. Although, you might have a point in saying Victor’s revulsion at his creation was his perception, wrongly, that it had no soul. From the “misconceptions that are actually correct” file: Many people think that “Frankenstein” was the name of the monster. And they’re actually correct: Dr. Frankenstein _was_ a monster, and his creation really wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/26 "2012-02-27T20:04:01Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > From the “misconceptions that are actually correct” file: Many people think that “Frankenstein” was the name of the monster. And they’re actually correct: Dr. Frankenstein _was_ a monster, and his creation really wasn’t. As with everything, this is more complex than it appears. “Frankenstein” was being used for the name of the creature during Mary Shelley’s lifetime. It was pretty common for all those late 19th century political cartoons (“The New Irish Frankenstein” it would be labeled, showing some large composite creature menacing the personification of America, or something). And this is one of the few things that the 1931 film DID take from Peggy Webling’s play – her script called both the Creator and the Creature “Frankenstein” ---
**Author:** ![Dung\_Beetle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dung_beetle/32/7945_2.png) [@Dung\_Beetle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dung_Beetle)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/27 "2012-02-27T20:27:20Z")
That’s\* Fronk\*-en-steen! ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/28 "2012-02-27T20:33:31Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And they’re actually correct: Dr. Frankenstein _was_ a monster, and his creation really wasn’t. I don’t know that Clerval would have agreed with that point. And the plot device of the “criminal brain” transplant was also used to great effect in “The Fly” (1958), in which the hapless scientist ends up with “the murderous brain of a fly.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/29 "2012-02-27T21:02:47Z")
> [@simster](#): > > For Star Trek - they used ‘protomatter’ as a cheat - it was known to be unstable - the book explains it better - it was a design flaw and would have caused the same instablity had the device been used as intended. It wasn’t necessary in the book either. It would have been enough to say the whole Genesis concept was fundamentally flawed and even under ideal conditions the reordered matrix was unstable, or some such thing. Of course, _Star Trek_ is no stranger to introducing a game-changing concept and then immediately forgetting about it. ---
**Author:** ![Death\_of\_Rats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a6a055/32.png) [@Death\_of\_Rats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Death_of_Rats)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/30 "2012-02-27T21:10:53Z")
> [@Dung\_Beetle](#): > > That’s\* Fronk\*-en-steen! Do you also pronounce it “Fr-OH-derick”? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/31 "2012-02-27T21:12:51Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > I don’t know that Clerval would have agreed with that point. > > And the plot device of the “criminal brain” transplant was also used to great effect in “The Fly” (1958), in which the hapless scientist ends up with “the murderous brain of a fly.” Again, though, that’s not in the original Langelaan story (in which, by the way, the scientist also gets parts of the previously-teleported-and-lost kitten) See my Teemings article “Teleportation Angst” [http://www.teemings.net/series\_1/issue14/calmeacham.html](http://www.teemings.net/series_1/issue14/calmeacham.html) ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2012, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/32 "2012-02-27T21:26:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It wasn’t necessary in the book either. It would have been enough to say the whole Genesis concept was fundamentally flawed and even under ideal conditions the reordered matrix was unstable, or some such thing. > > Of course, _Star Trek_ is no stranger to introducing a game-changing concept and then immediately forgetting about it. The point, as I recall it - was to bookend with Kirk (the father) cheating - “changing the conditions of the test” - not believing in “the no win scenario” - and that the only way that Kirk (the son) could get Genesis to work on a planetary scale was to use protomatter in the matrix. Also - the matrix was stable- the cave was evidence of that “what we did in there we did in a day”. Neither of them was willing to quit. In any event - its been years - yeah, they could have just said “it will never work” and scrapped the whole thing, but that wouldn’t have been much of a movie. ---
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/33 "2012-02-28T02:10:39Z")
I still like the movie better. The portions of the book I had to read in high school as well as supposedly more faithful adaptations, I just find them dull in comparison. The movie isn’t exactly free of making a point either. Man tries to play God, shit ensues. If that’s a different point than the book or somehow negated by using abbynormal brains, whatever. ---
**Author:** ![TreacherousCretin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/treacherouscretin/32/476_2.png) [@TreacherousCretin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TreacherousCretin)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/34 "2012-02-28T02:55:11Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > What hunchback? Well played! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/35 "2012-02-28T03:10:12Z")
I have always thought the film adaptations of Frankenstein were perhaps the greatest betrayal of source material ever. The actual novel is a much more cinematic affair than the films even, the novel opens in Antarctica as Dr Frankenstein has finally been found by his creation and the rest of the story is told in flashback. The creature is very much a synthetic human, in fact his confrontation with Frankenstein felt more like Roy confronting Tyrell in Blade Runner than any of the film adaptations. The creature is nothing like in the films, he is intelligent and reasoning and again a synthetic human really. There is also some odd Freudian subtext about men not being able to create life and stuff, no film went that far. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/36 "2012-02-28T04:16:49Z")
> [@grude](#): > > I have always thought the film adaptations of Frankenstein were perhaps the greatest betrayal of source material ever. > > The actual novel is a much more cinematic affair than the films even, the novel opens in Antarctica as Dr Frankenstein has finally been found by his creation and the rest of the story is told in flashback. The creature is very much a synthetic human, in fact his confrontation with Frankenstein felt more like Roy confronting Tyrell in Blade Runner than any of the film adaptations. The creature is nothing like in the films, he is intelligent and reasoning and again a synthetic human really. > > There is also some odd Freudian subtext about men not being able to create life and stuff, no film went that far. See my notes above. At least four films start with the Arctic “framing” story and tell the story in flashback, including Brannaugh’s. Two of the films are surprisingly faithful – the Per Oscarsson _Victor Frankenstein_ and the recent Hallmark miniseries. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_A.Robrin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sam_a.robrin/32/14497_2.png) [@Sam\_A.Robrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_A.Robrin)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/37 "2012-02-28T05:58:20Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > As with everything, this is more complex than it appears. “Frankenstein” was being used for the name of the creature during Mary Shelley’s lifetime. It was pretty common for all those late 19th century political cartoons (“The New Irish Frankenstein” it would be labeled, showing some large composite creature menacing the personification of America, or something). And this is one of the few things that the 1931 film DID take from Peggy Webling’s play – her script called both the Creator and the Creature “Frankenstein” I knew this was going to come up–it always does in these discussions! Didn’t the monster have a certain entitlement to his progenitor’s name? I’d say so, so the monster is Frankenstein as far as I’m concerned. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/38 "2012-02-28T12:19:01Z")
A slight aside: [Would Frankenstein’s monster be possible today? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1869/would-frankensteins-monster-be-possible-today) ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/39 "2012-02-28T13:33:08Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > I don’t know that Clerval would have agreed with that point… William Frankenstein also. We’ve actually discussed this in the lounge at work & we agree that’s where he became a monster. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151/40 "2012-02-28T15:00:30Z")
> [@Sam\_A.Robrin](#): > > I knew this was going to come up–it always does in these discussions! > Didn’t the monster have a certain entitlement to his progenitor’s name? I’d say so, so the monster is Frankenstein as far as I’m concerned. I mean, the vet has my pets as, say, “Edison Lastname”, which is weird but whatever. If my cat gets my last name, surely my abomination should? I wonder if, when I get married, I have to let the vet know. “The cats have decided to change their names.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-they-add-the-abnormal-normal-brain-thing-in-the-frankenstein-movie/614151.md?page=3)