Obviously, she was no longer 99 and 44/100% pure.
What hunchback?
Ha!
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.
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”
That’s* Fronk*-en-steen!
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.”
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.
Do you also pronounce it “Fr-OH-derick”?
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”
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.
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.
Well played! 
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.
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.
William Frankenstein also. We’ve actually discussed this in the lounge at work & we agree that’s where he became a monster.
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.”