You must log in or register to comment.

thomasnomad t1_j2au5gc wrote

It's pronounced eye-gore.


MitsyEyedMourning t1_j2avhr0 wrote

Wasn't your hump on the other side before?


thirdeyefish t1_j2aw80b wrote

What hump?


Stachemaster86 t1_j2b0gan wrote

Walk this way


BigNastyG765 t1_j2dhvod wrote

I love that this scene was actually Aerosmith’s inspiration for their song walk this way.


Stachemaster86 t1_j2erj8c wrote

I found that out earlier this year! I love fun facts and this is great.


ozzalot t1_j2aw5kd wrote

Well they told me it was eee-gore 🤷


janzeera t1_j2cd4mu wrote

“Of course the rates have gone up.”


Landlubber77 t1_j2az38m wrote

Frankenstein's monster is a bit of a pastiche himself.


zachzsg t1_j2bynpz wrote

Yeah, in the book he has superhuman intelligence and can run like 10,000 mph. Meanwhile in popular culture he’s this lumbering oaf that can barely move let alone speak lol


temporarysecretary17 t1_j2caqau wrote

Meanwhile, people think he’s a poor innocent victim killing to protect himself, but that’s more movie franchise. Book franchise, whilst also a victim, is also a complete psychopathic sadist who dedicates his existence to torturing Victor.

Also, Frankenstein in the OG movies still had an arc, when he killed himself in bride of Frankenstein it’s actually very sad, much more sympathetic than book frankie overall.

And yes, I’m calling the monster Frankenstein, sue me.


dmk_aus t1_j2ceua0 wrote

Yeah, I don't get all the "Frankenstein's Creature is a victim".

Hyper intelligent with great understanding of others emotions. Absolutely knows of right and wrong. Is willing to kill and torture for his own gain and for vengence. "But would totally have been nice if everyone was nicer to him so it is all their fault."

I guess the Creature is such a psychopathic narcissist how is the bad guy who thinks he's the victim and noble hero... who punishes and condemns other's mistakes harshly and justifies his own horrendous actions absolutely - that a lot of people relate to the Creature.

Or people didn't read the book so run with the meme - "Knowledge is knowing that Frankenstein is not the monster. Wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster." Which is BS.

Should be "Knowledge is knowing that memes are entertaining. Wisdom is knowing that people lie on the internet."


brand_new_zippyjams t1_j2ctlys wrote

In the book, we hear about how the creature learns things, revealing that it was essentially a child left abandoned to figure out things for himself. The creature is a victim. It isn't him just wanting people to be "nice" to him. It's about a desire to be loved and treated like a being worthy of companionship. The reason he asks Frankenstein to make another monster is because he realizes he will never be able to find any kind of love from mankind.

Just like a child who has been neglected, the creature lashed out in the only way he saw to take some sort of control of the situation. This doesn’t mean that he isn't responsible for his actions. He is absolutely aware of what he was doing. But this doesn’t erase the victim hood that put him in a place where saw revenge as the best option.


dmk_aus t1_j2d1nyb wrote

Yes bad things happen to the Creature. He is the victim in some instances. This may explain why he is an evil sadistic killer. But doesn't make him not a mentally culpable for the complex and heinous crimes committed or excuse him from guilt.

The Creature is far to well spoken, understands people and emotions too deeply and plans too thoroughly to be left off the hook as a child.

The Doctor made mistakes as a parent. Panicked and terrified by the animated corpse he had creates, he fled. That is the wrong thing to do. However it definitely isn't worse than the Creature. The Doctor is racked with guilt, learned not to make the same mistake and so didn't make the Female Creature. Put effort into trying to limit the creatures harm.

This isn't a battered partner lashing out. This is a adult who discovers the identity of their birth parent, who left them in an orphanage where they got abused, planning and murdering friends/family/bride of the birth parent and extorting them for things they want.


MaimedJester t1_j2cm1cl wrote

Yeah there's also an unreliable narrator to when the Monster Tells Frankenstein about what he did between Frankenstein Fleeing and Abandoning him and when the Monster tracks him down ... Years later? He talks about the blind man in the farm and how he read some books he found and that taught him philosophy and literature and lists stuff like Sorrows of Young Werther by Goethe. (Which is one of those famous books about suicide)

But there's a very strange omission... Pretty much every house even the illiterate ones would have a Bible. Monster apparently never read the Bible or saw the Bible. Doesn't even bring it up.

So there's a lot of holes in the story where Dr. Frankenstein seriously thinks he might have allowed a literal Demon to posses a corpse. So the demon is lying to him and if he created the bride who knows what kind of Demon race would be unleashed on earth?

Not saying that's exactly what the text says, but it is a fair reading.


Greene_Mr t1_j2co63p wrote

The Shelleys were atheists.

Also, imagine putting the emotional capabilities of a child... into an adult body and mind. You're giving life to someone in no way equipped to deal with that.


temporarysecretary17 t1_j2d42tk wrote

The monster doesn’t stay as a child forever. By the time Victor meets him he’s basically a poet. But people still line up to defend his child murder because I guess they think it makes them profound?


Greene_Mr t1_j2d511w wrote

He has really bad emotional control issues. As is plainly proven over and over again. He cannot control his anger; he cannot control his joy. Had he been born in the natural fashion, and raised from infancy to adulthood, rather than suddenly becoming with a child's capacity for unchecked emotion in a fully-adult body and mind, he might not have started murdering folks.


dmk_aus t1_j2dehgo wrote

Is killing with months of planning and warning, Killing because of breach of contract and killing by setting someone up to be executed for a child murder you committed able to be considered "uncontrolled anger".

He controlled his anger enough not to kill the Doctor outright. He controlled his anger if it benefited him. I don't know why the world is full of Creature apologists.


temporarysecretary17 t1_j2d53qd wrote

Idk, I think what mostly differentiates him from a child and truly makes him irredeemable is him basically saying “I want to kill mused but instead of doing that I’m going to dedicate my life to torturing you specifically”.


Greene_Mr t1_j2d5749 wrote

Because at the end of it all, he never wanted to be made -- hence, the epigram from Paradise Lost at the start of the book, for pete's sake.

"If I could not inspire love, I would instead cause fear"


Grayman222 t1_j2cz316 wrote

the creature was the original 'nice guy' had lots of daddy issues too.


SirRedRising t1_j2f4z92 wrote

>Yeah, I don't get all the "Frankenstein's Creature is a victim".

Agree that the Monster isn't a victim, but I'd argue the axiom of "...the Doctor is the real monster" still holds true. The guy slapped together corpses and brought it to life, he then had to deal with the ramifications of his having played God. Unfortunately the Doctor couldn't hide from his creation like God, or Steve Buscemi, though...


Grayman222 t1_j2cz0ld wrote

I read the book for the first time this year and it really threw me off that I did not get the character I expected. Was interesting to see that subverted though.


BrokenEye3 t1_j2bzknr wrote

That's because they adapted the play, not the book


OuttatimepartIII t1_j2azjmi wrote

The Monster himself is a pastiche. He wasn't blind and lumbering with his arms out until the fifth movie and that was because he had become blind and all his dialogue cut


Toaster_bath13 t1_j2bc5q1 wrote

Wait... who thought he was blind?

I assumed the arm thing was just like rigor mortis or him being stiff when he walked I guess.


OuttatimepartIII t1_j2bhdq7 wrote

Nope. It happens in Ghost of Frankenstein (the fourth movie)

Ygor in this movie is the devious mastermind, sending the Monster out to kill. The son of the original Dr. Frankenstein is forced by Ygor to perform an operation that will give the monster a new brain, his own. Ygor has his own brain placed inside the monsters body. Unfortunately for him he knows nothing about science and the blood types turn out to be incompatible. The Ygor Monster goes blind.

In the 5th movie, Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, the Monster is discovered alive. He is still blind and lumbers around with his arms out because this is how has had to learn how to walk. Coupled with the fact that the Monster is played this time by Bela Lugosi (the original Dracula) who at this time was getting on in years and substance abuse. The kicker is that the studio demanded any and all reference to the Monster being blind removed from the film. So now audiences just seen a stumbling lumbering growling oaf on screen. People parodied the look so hard it became engrained in the culture.

These movies get weird man


MmmmMorphine t1_j2c7u6r wrote

Woah. That's hilarious. Did you just know that off the top off your head? Cause it's seriously impressive knowledge.

I realize that sounded sarcastic, but it is not intended as such...


OuttatimepartIII t1_j2cfjxs wrote

Lol it's all good. Yes, this was just off the top of my head. I find cinema history fascinating


Greene_Mr t1_j2cof9y wrote

They cut all of Lugosi's lines because (apparently) test audiences couldn't take Lugosi's voice coming from the Monster's body seriously.


Greene_Mr t1_j2coq25 wrote

You forgot to mention the kicker -- one of the reasons they had Lugosi play the Monster in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

In The Ghost of Frankenstein, the Monster was played by Lon Chaney, Jr., since Karloff had refused to play the part any more times. All well and good... until you get to putting the Monster together with Larry Talbot, a.k.a. the Wolf Man... who was also played by Lon Chaney, Jr.

The solution? Have Chaney, Jr. play Talbot and Lugosi play the Monster (since Lugosi had voiced the Ygor-in-Monster's-body part of the climax of The Ghost of Frankenstein over Chaney, Jr.'s performance).


OuttatimepartIII t1_j2dflp6 wrote

I know it was a conplete happenstance but I love that Lugosi played the Monster after hia brain was put into it. Lugosi finally playing the role he had been approached to take back when they made the original in '31.


Greene_Mr t1_j2fka48 wrote

What's even weirder is that, from the cut script segments for Lugosi in Meets the Wolf Man I've seen recreated on YouTube, the Monster is apparently not meant to be Ygor, but instead the Monster with a better brain and Ygor's personality/voice -- in direct contradiction to what you'd think the end of Ghost of Frankenstein depicts, with the Monster's personality completely obliterated by Ygor's.


OuttatimepartIII t1_j2fm23l wrote

I've seen a lot of debate about the context of that deleted material. Some really philosophical stuff. Like which aspect of the Monster is considered the original monster? In Ghost, it's Ygor in there for sure. But in the deleted Wolfman material, the Monster talks about these events objectively


SpookyMobley t1_j2d2v9d wrote

And I love them all so much


OuttatimepartIII t1_j2dgu4x wrote

Which ones your favorite? I have a soft spot for Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman


SpookyMobley t1_j2elsyu wrote

Bride is my all time favorite but I have a soft spot for them all as well.


BrokenEye3 t1_j2c0obv wrote

Is it just me, or does Ygor seem like a bit of an antisemetic caricature?


kthulhu666 t1_j2ax5eb wrote

This sadly reminds me how the two greatest movie assistants to Frankenstein - Dwight Frye and Marty Feldman - both died too young.


Somestaffass t1_j2b0oc8 wrote

Actual Frankenstein is the monster, the scientist is called Frankensteins maker


Eoin_McLove t1_j2b65rr wrote

The doctor was the real monster all along...


temporarysecretary17 t1_j2cbcb9 wrote

I always hated this take. Both sucked. The monster was a product of his environment and neglect sure, but he was still a sadistic serial killer. Sympathetic but irredeemable.


DroolingIguana t1_j2bzs9h wrote

> "At this time a slight sleep relieved me from the pain of reflection, which was disturbed by the approach of a beautiful child, who came running into the recess I had chosen, with all the sportiveness of infancy. Suddenly, as I gazed on him, an idea seized me that this little creature was unprejudiced and had lived too short a time to have imbibed a horror of deformity. If, therefore, I could seize him and educate him as my companion and friend, I should not be so desolate in this peopled earth.

> "Urged by this impulse, I seized on the boy as he passed and drew him towards me. As soon as he beheld my form, he placed his hands before his eyes and uttered a shrill scream; I drew his hand forcibly from his face and said, ‘Child, what is the meaning of this? I do not intend to hurt you; listen to me.’

> "He struggled violently. ‘Let me go,’ he cried; ‘monster! Ugly wretch! You wish to eat me and tear me to pieces. You are an ogre. Let me go, or I will tell my papa.’

> "‘Boy, you will never see your father again; you must come with me.’

> "‘Hideous monster! Let me go. My papa is a syndic—he is M. Frankenstein—he will punish you. You dare not keep me.’

> "‘Frankenstein! you belong then to my enemy—to him towards whom I have sworn eternal revenge; you shall be my first victim.’

> "The child still struggled and loaded me with epithets which carried despair to my heart; I grasped his throat to silence him, and in a moment he lay dead at my feet.

> "I gazed on my victim, and my heart swelled with exultation and hellish triumph; clapping my hands, I exclaimed, ‘I too can create desolation; my enemy is not invulnerable; this death will carry despair to him, and a thousand other miseries shall torment and destroy him.’

Victor had his flaws (his consistent refusal to take responsibility for his actions being chief among them) but he wasn't a cold-blooded murderer. The monster was the real monster.


ANGLVD3TH t1_j2cyybr wrote

Victor made a superstrong/superintelligent abomination without any of the experience one needs to harness either, and no desire to nurture it. The monster only turns out as such because his father was also one. Anyone with experience with kids knows how cruel they can be, imagine a toddler suddenly gained 100 IQ points and the body of a professional weightlifter. Things would quickly spiral out of control without a guiding hand.


EffectiveSalamander t1_j2bm6w1 wrote

If you consider the Monster to be Frankenstein's son as his creation, he should be entitled to the name Frankenstein as well. Unless Fitzfrankenstein would fit better.

As for a first name, I suppose that has to be Monster. Not a great name, but you have to go with what you got.


RandoCalrissian11 t1_j2bfolt wrote

Frankenstein is the maker. The creature is never named. Unless you count Abby Normal.


wigbot t1_j2b5cjm wrote

Actually, Dr. Victor Frankenstein is the doctor. He refers to the monster as several names, eg, wretch devil, etc.

Read the book.


wigbot t1_j2bag4z wrote

Apologies, I should have said creator, not doctor. He wasn't a Dr.

I have read the book and my wife teaches it in English Lang. I will seek here admonishment.


Alternative_Effort t1_j2b1hnj wrote

In the movie, ya gotta have somebody for Frankenstein to talk to. The book full of stream-of-consciousness monologues -- so the assistant doesn't say much, just listens.


DroolingIguana t1_j2c07fg wrote

For the entire book he's talking to Robert Walton.


Alternative_Effort t1_j2c4kd0 wrote

A 1931 audience didn't yet have the cinematic language to understand the "voice over flashback narration". That didn't happen until 1939's Wuthering Heights.


GriffinFlash t1_j2b238u wrote

His son did though, in the universal film Son of Frankenstein, played by Bela Lugosi.


SchillMcGuffin t1_j2bc49d wrote

And Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein is largely based on Son of Frankenstein, so "Eygore" isn't just a random inclusion in that either.


GriffinFlash t1_j2bey6f wrote

But they told me his name was pronouce Igor?


Yasuru t1_j2bnwy6 wrote

Well, they were wrong, weren't they?


BringsHomeBones OP t1_j2bz8zw wrote

He was a blacksmith with a broken neck rather than Frankenstein's assistant.


opiate_lifer t1_j2be0z6 wrote

What has always boggled my mind is the original novel is almost written like a screenplay, extremely visual and intriguing! Starts in the Arctic with Doctor Frankenstein being rescued, and sighting of a bizarre pursuer in the distance and then the whole thing is told in flashback. The monster is more like Roy Batty confronting Tyrell in Blade Runner than the "Urgggh Arrrgh!" movie monster.

Easily one of the worst movie adaptations ever, yet the movie monster is what is culturally iconic which is a shame.


Boccs t1_j2bzno3 wrote

Right up there with the adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in terms of "missing the point of the book" since in the book Jekyll's serum didn't do anything to his personality at all, only temporarily changed his appearance. It's just under the safety of anonymity Dr. Jekyll was allowed to do all the awful hedonistic shit he wanted to do normally but couldn't because it would damage his reputation as a proper Victorian gentleman. No personality disorders, no change of mentality, just a guy who found out how to be an asshole without people knowing it was him.

Meanwhile 90% of movies make it a magic potion that alters his psyche and body to make them two separate entities fighting for control like a less green Incredible Hulk.


temporarysecretary17 t1_j2cbmmn wrote

The problem is everyone already knows the book’s twist, so a faithful adaptation would simply not be that interesting,


Boccs t1_j2cckyz wrote

At this juncture I'd argue a faithful adaptation would actually be more surprising to general audiences. Most people these days associate the story with the personality disorder interpretation, so sticking to the original story would probably throw a lot of people for a loop.


temporarysecretary17 t1_j2ccp9h wrote

Maybe for the first 10 minutes. I don’t think people would be interested enough to pay money to watch it.


Boccs t1_j2cgulw wrote

I mean that could be said of any version of Jekyll and Hyde. They've seen the personality monster so many times that's not going to draw any more people than running it accurately to the book would.


temporarysecretary17 t1_j2cbjm7 wrote

> Easily one of the worst movie adaptations ever

I will always defend universal Frankenstein. It’s a different take on the character but still a pretty valid one. Especially with bride of Frankenstein which is better than the original, as the movie monster is a completely different character they go through different arcs, but it’s still a good one.


Starfire-Galaxy t1_j2bkbup wrote

And the Creature (as he's called in the book) learns to speak from reading novels and listening to the conversations of Felix and his sister Agatha, who live with their blind father.

Unlike the movie when the Creature meets the blind man for an hour and leaves immediately, he actually spends months hidden in their backyard sleeping in their shed without them knowing he's there until he tries to initiate contact, scaring them half to death with his appearance.


DroolingIguana t1_j2c0f9v wrote

The Creature doesn't have a consistent name in the book. It's narrated by Frankenstein and he uses a different string of insults to refer to the Creature every time.


HHOHarwood t1_j2b9qgc wrote

Weird that I literally just learned what a pastiche is from a Weird AL interview 2 days ago only to see it used for what feels like only the 2nd time.


GnomeNot t1_j2c7xej wrote

That’s the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.


jimalloneword t1_j2cw4ed wrote

Huh, that's funny. I just learned what the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon was yesterday and now I'm seeing it again


BringsHomeBones OP t1_j2cc9x6 wrote

I watched a Weird Al interview too. Maybe it sunk into my subconscious.


TommyBoy825 t1_j2blda6 wrote

Terry Pratchett's Igors are a lot more interesting, but Feldman is the only true Eyegore.


Boccs t1_j2bzt5s wrote

Terry Pratchett's everythings are a lot more interesting. The man had an unparalleled gift for taking tropes and cliches and turning them so far on their head that it makes you wonder how we never saw them in that light to begin with.


revtim t1_j2c5e2v wrote

Nice trivia question to ask people is "what's the name of Dr. Frankstein's hunchbacked assistant in the original 1931 film with Boris Karloff?" Nobody ever guesses "Fritz".


getbeaverootnabooteh t1_j2bwycy wrote

If you know the pop culture Frankenstein and then read the original novel, you'll be a little caught off guard by how little the popular image resembles the original story.

For one thing, Frankenstein was the name of the guy who made the monster, not the name of the monster itself.


AIAWC t1_j2ch40b wrote

I can confirm, because I only ever read the novel and I have no clue who he is.


jippyzippylippy t1_j2c5xrs wrote

It's pronounced: Fronkenshteen!


herbw t1_j2e7awh wrote

The funniest part was when Marty Feldman also played Igor's brother, who had a hump on the opposite side to Igor.


jippyzippylippy t1_j2eqv72 wrote

I thought the hump had just moved, which sort of freaked out Wilder's character.


VoraciousTrees t1_j2cp8zg wrote

ygor shows up in "Son of Frankenstein"... Best of the first 3 movies frankly... the ones with Karloff.


boomstickbutcher t1_j2avs5w wrote

This is what I needed to know today, thank you.


Double_Distribution8 t1_j2bxrqj wrote

Well he was in Young Frankenstein and that movie is considered to be canon by most modern scholars at this point, regardless of whatever Mary Shelley was trying to do with her book.


pickleer t1_j2c5o9r wrote


This character was ret-conned into several other stories following his success

OOPS! Turns out, it's always been with us, through the hitler, Stalin, Nixon, and trump administrations. It was said that Rasputin was especially offended and jealous of its power and influence, especially when trump's children started ignoring him.