Horror Movie Podcast Ep. 083: Frankenstein (1931) vs. Frankenstein (2016)

HMP Frankenstein Versus

IT’S ALIVE! Welcome to HORROR MOVIE PODCAST, where we’re Dead Serious About Horror Movies… This is Episode 083. In this ultimate Frankensteinian episode, Jay of the Dead, Dr. Shock and Wolfman review the original Frankenstein (1931) and compare and contrast it with the most recent telling of this classic story, this year’s Frankenstein (2016) from Bernard Rose (the director of Candyman). We also discuss Mary Shelley’s original novel and several other adaptations of her work, including Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein. Wolfman also brings you a mini-review of last year’s Victor Frankenstein and Doc brings you a special tribute to Béla Lugosi.

Caution: We reveal major plot spoilers for both “Frankenstein” movies, as well as the original novel and some other versions of this story. If that’s too much for you … well … you’ve been warned!

Horror Movie Podcast is a bi-weekly show that’s released every other Friday. If you’d like to support our show, please subscribe to our podcast free in iTunes, and leave us a review! And remember, we love getting your voicemails, so call in with more recommendations and comments at this number: (801) 382-8789 Thanks for listening to Horror Movie Podcast!

SHOW NOTES:

The Mothman

I. Introduction
— The Sci-Fi Podcast
— Jay’s boy unwittingly paints The Mothman! (pictured here)


[ 00:07:12 ] II. Feature Review: FRANKENSTEIN (1931)
Jay of the Dead = 10 ( Buy the Legacy Collection DVD! )
Wolfman Josh = 10 ( Buy it! )
Dr. Shock = 10 ( Buy the Universal Monsters Blu-ray! )


[ 00:55:32 ] III. Mini Review: VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN (2015)
Wolfman Josh = 7.5 ( Rental )


[ 01:01:52 ] IV. Feature Review: FRANKENSTEIN (2016)
Jay of the Dead = 8.5 ( Buy it! )
Wolfman Josh = 7 ( Rental )
Dr. Shock = 7.5 ( Rental )


[ 01:32:16 ] V. HMP Miscellany
— Dr. Shock on the life and legend of Béla Lugosi
— Bride of the Monster (1955)
— Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla (1952)
— Wolfman Josh’s forthcoming Hitchcock filmography video reviews
— Mystery shows


VI. Wrap-Up / Plugs / Ending
— Next time on HMP Ep. 083: Witchy Women — Join us!


Don’t forget to check out Part 2 of our Crossover Phantasm Franchise Review with our friends at The Sci Fi Podcast. Find the episode on the TSFP iTunes, Stitcher or at their website: thescifipodcast.com. Dave, Josh and I joined the conversation with Mattroid and Station! and it was a lot of fun.


NOTE FOR NEWCOMERS: If you love this podcast, there are 36 episodes of two other great podcasts that precede this one. Just scroll back through our archives, or use the links in the sidebar on the right.

Leave a comment or e-mail us here: HorrorMoviePodcast@gmail.com

LINKS FOR THIS EPISODE:

Jay of the Dead’s links:
Jay of the Dead and Horror Movie Podcast Official Twitter: @HorrorMovieCast
Jay of the Dead covers new releases in theaters on: Movie Podcast Weekly
And if you’d like to e-mail Jay of the Dead with a good Beastly Freaks recommendation: BeastlyFreaks@gmail.com

Wolfman Josh’s links:
Follow Josh on Twitter: @IcarusArts
Josh covers streaming online movies on: Movie Stream Cast
Follow MSC on Twitter: @MovieStreamCast
Like MSC on: Facebook

Dr. Shock’s links:
Dave’s daily movie review website: DVD Infatuation.com
Follow Dave on Twitter: @DVDinfatuation
Like Dave’s DVD Infatuation, now on: Facebook
Dr. Shock also appears on this horror podcast: Land of the Creeps

Dr. Walking Dead’s links:
Pre-order Kyle’s new book! How Zombies Conquered Popular Culture: The Multifarious Walking Dead in the 21st Century
Order Kyle’s previous books American Zombie Gothic and Triumph of The Walking Dead
Follow Kyle on Twitter: @DrWalkingDead

You can always contact us by e-mailing HorrorMoviePodcast@gmail.com. Or you can call and leave us a voice mail at: (801) 382-8789. And you can leave us a comment in the show notes for this episode.

Special thanks goes out to singer-songwriter Frederick Ingram for the use of his music for Horror Movie Podcast.

If you like Horror Movie Podcast, please subscribe and leave us a review in iTunes. If you want to support the show, we have PayPal buttons on our sister site, Movie Podcast Weekly.com, in the right-hand sidebar where you can make a one-time donation or you can become a recurring donor for just $2 per month. (Every little bit helps!)

Thanks for listening, and join us again Friday after next for HORROR MOVIE PODCAST!

86 thoughts on “Horror Movie Podcast Ep. 083: Frankenstein (1931) vs. Frankenstein (2016)

  1. “Caution: We reveal major plot spoilers for both “Frankenstein” movies, as well as the original novel and some other versions of this story. If that’s too much for you … well … you’ve been warned!”

    I see what you did there… Awesome.

  2. If someone pointed out that the director of Frankenstein 2016 was the director of Candyman, then I completely missed it and I feel stupid about saying “I’m going to keep an eye on this talented kid” or whatever pompous, belittling thing I said. Sorry, Bernard Rose. You’ve been scaring me since I was a child.

      • Also, if you’ve never seen it, Rose directed a hugely underrated horror/fantasy film called ‘Paperhouse.’ That movie is well worth seeking out. Still listening to the podcast so you might have already mentioned this.

    • Well, let’s be honest… I didn’t know the name of the director of “Candyman.” I didn’t care about directors in 1992, anyway… You think of “Candyman,” you think of Tony Todd.
      JOTD

      • Unless you were an avid reader of Fangoria in the early 90’s you probably wouldn’t have heard of Rose. Since Candyman stood out like a ‘Best Picture Contender’ in the early 90’s horror drought, Rose was Fango’s golden boy there for a couple of years.

        But he tried to go the Cronenberg route with his next couple of films – Immortal Beloved and a very ambitious adaptation of Anna Karenia – and then dissappeared for awhile.

        Good to see he’s taking another stab at a horror movie; I’ll have to give it a look.

        But I hope you guys consider checking out ‘Paperhouse’ (if it’s easily available); it’s a really interesting horror fantasy hybrid. I can’t reccomend it enough.

  3. I’ve been meaning for a couple of years to sit down and watch all of the Universal horror films – most I have seen but not in a long time. Curious if anyone owns this and can attest to whether the transfers make it worth the purchase:

    http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Classic-Monsters-Collection-Frankenstein/dp/B00L8QP082/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1457200126&sr=1-2&keywords=Universal+Monsters+Collection

    I keep hoping they will release them all in blu-ray but I feel like a lot of the sequels will never get that treatment.

  4. I’ve shilled this movie before, but I’ll do it again. If you’re a fan of James Whale, obviously watch Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, and The Invisible Man, but don’t forget about The Old Dark House. While The Old Dark House is not a monster movie, it’s yet another great horror film from Whale. It even stars Boris Karloff too.

    • I second ‘Old Dark House;’ I might have done this in the past when you mentioned it, but I’ll do it again. This film definitely deserves recognition along with all of the early Universal Monster Movies.

      And make sure you watch the original and not the pseudo-remake by William Castle. I’m a Castle fan, but that is not one of his best.

        • It’s not horroible, Mark, and if you are a William Castle enthusiast it’s worth checking out. It’s just pretty blah – it’s very ‘Ghost and Mr. Chicken’ in it’s approach which is not a bad thing but it’s not as good as that film.

          Would love a Castle episode. Homicidal and Strait-Jacket are my two personal favorites.

          • I would love to hear a Castle episode as well! I agree that his version of Old Dark House was kind of a bore. The Ghost and Mr. Chicken was way more entertaining. I love Homicidal and Strait-Jacket would be a close second. I also have a soft spot for 13 Ghosts and House on Haunted Hill.

          • Haha, yea I remember this conversation from when we were talking about horror comedies. Castle rules!

          • I know you guys are talking about William Castle but I’d really love an episode about horror movies set in actual castles.

  5. This was a really enjoyable episode! I am looking forward to the others like this that are planned. I just checked out Bride of Frankenstein from the library and will be watching it for the first time. My initial introduction to the Frankenstein story was through Mel Brook’s Young Frankenstein. It is a longtime favorite of my mom’s and she showed it to me when I was about six or seven.
    Do you guys have any thoughts on some of the Hammer made Frankenstein films? I’ve really liked Peter Cushing’s portrayal of the mad doctor in the few of them I’ve seen.

  6. If your going on a murder mystery binge, check out Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries on Netflix. It stars Essie Davis of The Babadook, and it’s a fun show set in 1920’s Australia.

    • I’ve got Miss Fisher on my queue. Glad to hear it’s worth watching.

      I’m also really excited about the new BBC adaptation of And Then There Were None that’s airing next weekend on Lifetime of all channels. But I’ve heard great things about it including that it’s much darker than past versions.

  7. JOTD, I loved what you said about The Monster being unloved by his creator. This is a really disturbing part of the film. Shortly after Frankenstein creates life, he is horrified by what he’s done and can’t stand being around his creation. Doctor Frankenstein goes mad when he creates life and “knows what it feels like to be God,” but he can’t handle it. He never thought about what would happen after he created life and has no plan for that cycle of life to end. Life must be followed by death. In the opening scene there is a funeral with religious words to put the dead to rest. The camera pans across a graveyard, filled with crosses, and comes to Doctor Frankenstein and Fritz who have no reverence for the dead.

  8. Here’s a link to the first film adaptation of Frankenstein from 1910. There are a bunch of versions on youtube.

  9. I bought a Kolchak press credential laminate at a comic con a few years ago. He was the inspiration for the X-Files.
    From Wikipedia: Carter paid tribute to Kolchak in a number of ways in the show.[11] A character named “Richard Matheson”, named for the screenwriter of the pilot films, appeared in several episodes. Carter also wanted McGavin to appear as Kolchak in one or more episodes of The X-Files, but McGavin was unwilling to reprise the character for the show. He did eventually appear in several episodes as Arthur Dales, a retired FBI agent described as the “father of the X-Files”. In the third episode of the 2016 revival series, a character prominently featured in the episode Mulder and Scully Meet the Were-Monster is conspicuously attired in Kolchak’s trademark seersucker jacket, black knit tie, and straw hat.

    • Not yet, but I was looking into it today when trying to figure out which new horror movie to check out. It was high up on my short list… glad to hear you liked it.

  10. Fellas – Excellent* episode, as always. I’m glad you all checked out the 2016 Frankenstein, and even more glad that you all seemed to like it (mostly). I’ll admit that when I suggested it last week, it was not a personal recommendation out of experience. I still haven’t seen the film, actually, but just thought it would be good to have a new release as part of the versus comparison. Anyway, I’m definitely going to check it out soon after hearing your reviews.

    Also glad to hear the YouTube thing is going to happen. That’s where the kids are these days, after all. 😉

    * At least this episode wasn’t LAME.

  11. Loved this episode. From the perspective of a scientist who is also religious I would ask; Is the reanimation of a dead tissue the same as playing God? Is that what God does? I would argue that putting a car together from pre-forged pieces does not make me an automobile engineer, or designer. I didn’t smelt the ore, cast the parts, refine the fuel, etc… But even if I had, would that then make me a creator? Or would I need to develop the ability to create fundamental atomic matter from the background radiation of the universe to finally earn that honor?
    Perhaps what we should ask is; Is it wrong to develop scientific abilities that we have heretofore only ascribed to the supernatural (i.e. God)? And haven’t we been doing that for the last several thousand years? For a long period of time only Gods could fly, only Gods could see beyond the stars, or into the heart of an atom. Now we are reaching technological abilities in biology that are beginning to border again on the realm that we can only imagine God having the ability to traverse. In this area even the scientists are unsure of the moral and social implications the new boundaries they are pushing. But for all of our recorded history we have challenged, overcome, and ultimately understood the things previously ascribed to God alone. At what point do we draw the line? Or is there even a line to be drawn? Only Battlestar Galactica knows for sure… 😉
    Frankenstein begins to address these questions directly and indirectly through the tale of a man’s creation ultimately becoming his punishment for taking something too far. It brings to mind Oppenheimer’s comment when asked what he thought at the first test of the atomic bomb. In his original memoirs he said he was in stunned silence, but upon further reflection his official response became a well known eastern religion that states, “Now I am become Death, destroyer of men.” Like Dr. Frankenstein, he spent the rest of his career trying to stop proliferation of atom and hydrogen bombs in the U.S. and other countries. For his efforts the red scare government of the 50’s destroyed his career, stripped him of his awards, and made him an outcast. There are enough similarities with his reality that I would think Frankenstein may not hit too far from the mark as a warning to mankind.

    • Excellent points, Brain. Your car example is really strong.

      I wonder, though, if it isn’t the “playing” that is offensive to the religious mind when it comes to this notion of “playing God” within this story. You’re toying with the stuff of creation. In fact, perhaps re-animation is even more offensive than creation.

      This is excellent: “For a long period of time only Gods could fly, only Gods could see beyond the stars, or into the heart of an atom. Now we are reaching technological abilities in biology that are beginning to border again on the realm that we can only imagine God having the ability to traverse.”

      I’m sure you’ve heard of CRIPSR, Brain, but for everyone else, I’d recommend this 30 minute episode of the pop-science podcast RadioLab to learn the basics. It is the closest thing to Frankenstein I can imagine in our time and not unlike Bernard Roses’ treatment of the story. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it, Brain.

      It really takes off around 20 minutes in, but the beginning is necessary to understand the what they are talking about.

      RadioLab: http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/

  12. reposting my thoughts on Victor Frankenstein from my blog… my personal opinion is that this movie is woefully underrated and is definitely deserving of some degree of notice and attention.

    VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN

    I was skeptical when I first started seeing the trailers a few months back, but I am a bit of a fan of the old school Hammer films and a sucker for a creepy looking period piece. I’m the sort of guy who gets sucked in with the promise of Van Helsing and I found plenty to enjoy with the Wolfman remake, all while fully recognizing the various faults and flaws in these films and lamenting the missed opportunities each film represented. And this movie reeked of missed opportunities and misguided ideas to cash in on all those things the other films aimed to achieve. I was going to see it anyway and I was going to swallow the suckage that it promised.

    I was wrong.

    Daniel Radcliffe’s “Igor” warns us from the very beginning that this is a story we know- the mad scientist, the dark and stormy night, the Monster, and all of the usual trappings we see in each and every Frankenstein adaptation. No one is trying to reinvent the wheel here and no one is going to even try. This is a familiar story and it’s not the first time this kind of story made an attempt at telling it from the assistant’s point of view, either. But what we’re going to be told is an interesting take on the story- hitting familiar beats, striking a few recognizable notes, but all done very well and with just enough difference to be unique into itself. This is very similar to the “Hammer” style of story-telling in that it takes familiar elements and then makes something a little different. (Victor does, at one point, wear clothes that seem lovingly similar to those worn by Cushing in a number of those films.)

    And this is really the first time we get extremely close to seeing the monster as it is described by Mary Shelley- over ten feet tall, with multiple organs and parts in order to retain the power necessary to bring the creature to life (Lightning, once again… though never what is actually specified in the book itself.) The CGI here is used in force perspective with practical effects for one of the best Monsters I’ve seen in recent years. And James McAvoy is maddeningly brilliant as the good doctor himself.

    The film centers on Radcliffe, though- a departure from the original source material in order to cash in on pop culture recognition with the name of Igor. But Radcliffe isn’t just a lumbering slave- he’s an intelligent and compassionate assistant to a doctor driven by hubris to create life.

    It’s utterly baffling to see this film take such a stumbling step forward on its release weekend, but the marketing of the film has done nothing to really sink its teeth into the fanbase. The timing of the release seems designed to bury the film that should have come this past Halloween and into a place where it’s destined to fail, but let me assure anyone reading this that this film is definitely worthwhile and fun for the Hammer Horror fans who still dot the globe.

    • I haven’t watched Victor Frankenstein yet, but I definitely will after this episode. That film is known for having terrible marketing. In an effort to market his own independent film, Max Landis (writer of Victor Frankenstein) made some viral videos. The movie he made isn’t horror but my son is featured in one of Max’s viral videos. Here’s a link…

      • I agree. I wasn’t too impressed with the “Victor Frankenstein” trailer and commercials, etc. I just finished watching it and I enjoyed it a lot. I noticed nods to almost every previous incarnation, interpretation and Frankenstein pop-culture reference; 1931 (the police inspector’s wooden hand is my favorite homage), the Hammer film (the cravats and velvety layers of costumes), various movies (the Finnegan family investing in the experiment for capital exchange is reminiscent of “Flesh for Frankenstein” and the made for TV miniseries starring Parker Posey), the Kenneth Branagh one, “Van Helsing” (Lorelei’s red dress and the many minions at the castle during the denouement), and I think there was even a nod to “the Rocky Horror Picture Show” (not a favorite at all) when Igor is at the ball and does some crazy little time-warp-esque dance moves. To have a movie about Frankenstein that borrows parts from all previous Frankenstein movies is… well… you know…

        I’m not a big fan of the wise-cracking, quick-to-smile action hero VF character, but it certainly was a new interpretation. I give it a five as a snow-day watch it on cable movie.

  13. Love love LOVE Universals 31′ Frankenstein. There’s a documentary on the 75th anniversary DVDs of Dracula and Frankenstein called “Universal Horror” and if you haven’t seen it I highly recommend it.

    Jack Pierce’s makeup to this day is eerie and so amazing! I love how the side of Karloff’s face is sunken in giving him a very cadaverous look, and to think that was achieved just by pierce telling Boris to take his false teeth out and suck his cheek in.

    The scene with Maria at the lake is very chilling to me. A lot of people won’t even give these movies the time of day simply because they last about 70 minutes, they’re black and white, no nudity, gore, or adult language, so they can’t possibly be scary right? Well personally the shot of Maria’s father carrying her lifeless body through the town in full view of all the villagers really disturbs me. Funny thing is Boris was afraid Marilyn Harris would be terrified of him. She reportedly walked right up to him and said “could we walk to the set together?” To which he responded “would you my darling?” Boris was such a classy gentleman, and was known to be sipping tea in between takes.

    As a huge Universal Monsters fan I do see so many disturbing things in these movies and am not surprised one bit that people were completely shocked in 1931. Should definitely do a franchise review of the Universal Monster series. I would love to hear more of Dwight Frye. Personally while Bela Lugosi IS Dracula, that movie would pale in comparison without Frye as Renfield. I’ll end this post with the great Edward Van Sloan’s monologue from the original opening…

    “How do you do? Mr. Carl Laemmle feels it would be a little unkind to present this picture without just a word of friendly warning. We’re about to unfold the story of Frankenstein, a man of science who sought to create a man after his own image without reckoning upon God. It is one of the strangest tales ever told. It deals with the two great mysteries of creation: life and death. I think it will thrill you. It may shock you. It might even horrify you. So if any of you feel that you do not care to subject your nerves to such a strain, now is your chance to, uh… Well, we’ve warned you.

    • Maria’s father carrying her dead body through town is very messed up. Glad you mentioned it, Fritz. Another thing I love about this movie is how the townspeople are so involved in the story. I can’t think of an earlier movie with a riotous mob, which has definitely become a horror cliche.

  14. Great episode, guys. I’m curious to know your thoughts on “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” (1994). I think it was mentioned, but did you guys not like that one? Or is it too much to do a vs. vs. episode? Just curious as to why that one was skipped.
    I felt it was pretty entertaining, but way too over-the-top at times.
    It had a great opening segment when Capt. Robert Walton comes across Victor being chased by the monster in the Arctic. I’ve always loved that scene from Shelley’s book and thought it was done well in Branagh’s film.

    • I agree with you about the opening. Totally awesome.

      Reviewing Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) was actually our original plan, but then Dino recommended the 2016 film and Sal recommended Victor Frankenstein (2015) and we just switched gears.

      We did mention it on the show, but not everyone was as interested in talking about it as opposed to talking about a newer versions. I think Jay, in particular, doesn’t like the 1994 film.

      I do like the movie okay, probably about as well as I liked the 2016 film. I actually prefer a lot of the sequels to the Universal film–like Bride and Son–to any of the modern tellings.

      Had the most actual fun with Victor, though.

  15. Great episode guys! This has helped me decide that this upcoming October, I’m going to do monster madness and watch as many Universal classics as I can. I’ve seen a good handful like Frankenstein, Dracula, Creature From the Black Lagoon, but I had A LOT of blind spots!

    Thanks for illuminating the 2016 Frankenstein as well. I honestly had never heard of it.

    Also, Josh, so glad you reviewed “Victor Frankenstein”. I thought the trailer looked like so much fun, so when it was tanking at the box office I worried it might not be so good. I need to check it out soon!

    • I don’t love execution of the monster elements of Victor Frankenstein, but the human elements are a blast, for me. If my description sounded compelling, you’ll probably like it.

  16. One of my favorite influences of Frankenstein on the cinema is the “re-animation scene” in The Princess Bride. Come to think of it, that movie actually has a few elements taken from horror influences.

    Something that always struck me about Frankenstein is its pervasiveness in popular culture. Whether it’s kids walking around with stiff legs, arms stretched in front of them and moaning, to the term “frankenstein” being applied to anything unnaturally cobbled together by a number of different sources, the story and idea of Mary Shelley’s original novel has had an undeniably sizable influence on the mainstream.

    It’s hard to think of many horror-originated influences on pop culture that rival Frankenstein. Off the top of my head, I’m thinking zombies and vampires, of course… definitely Jaws, and maybe Freddy and Jason.

      • There actually aren’t that many ghost ship films I can think of, never mind ones that are actually effective. Here’s all I could come up with and some are stretching the definition of “ghost ship”:

        Death Ship (1980)
        Ghost Ship (2002)
        The Ghost Galleon/Horror of the Zombies (1974)
        Triangle (2009)
        Virus (1999)
        Event Horizon (1997)

        • There’s a film called The Ghost Ship (1943) by Val Lewton (Director of Cat People).

          Harbinger Down takes place in a ship though the threat isn’t a ghost.

          • Yes, it could be “Death at Sea” or something. Wouldn’t have to be ghosts, per se.

            Dracula has a ghost ship element.

            Virus reminded me of Deep Rising. I think they came out around the same time and I always confused them back in the day.

          • I actually prefer Deep Rising to Virus even though the formers shoddy CGI pales in comparison to the body-horror practical effects of the latter. But the movies definitely have a similar feel. Kind of in a similar vein as Deep Star Six and Leviathan.

    • Night of the Creeps is one of those movies I always forget about but then when I remember it I realise how much I love it. Tonight may very well be beer, kebab and Night of the Creeps.

    • Two different styles of films so I that it would be a tough versus episode. You might be onto something with the original NOTD and the remake though.

  17. Props for the shout out to 1985’s CLUE. I love that flick and over the years I have taken a lot of flack from people over it. It’s nice to see that I’m in good company.

    D

  18. After coming in late to these podcasts, I find myself a little bit obsessed, my name is Tony and I hail from London England, iv been playing catch up with all the great podcasts, from the scifi to movie weekly I love them all, my favorite is hmp though, I finally had the balls to make a comment last week about the name of the monster in frankenstein , I wasn’t sure because there was the film I frankenstein, and josh set me straight saying it happens that sometimes , but then brought up in the podcast how some people have got a hang up about the name. I nearly died , was it me? Should I comment again ? Lol still love the shows though.

    • I think there’s certainly a group of fans that get a nervous tick whenever they hear the monster being called Frankenstein. I’ve been guilty of this in the past as well. When you hear it, you want to set it straight so that it slowly becomes far less common.

      It’s one of those random non-issues that can be so frustrating. Ha

      • I hear you, thanks sal , I think it was the fact that Josh mentioned about people bemoaning the fact that “oh some people can’t get over the fact that some people call the monster Frankenstein” upset me a bit because that’s not what I was getting at. Anyway it really doesn’t matter😁

        • I try to use “The Monster” when I can. Though, when I refer to Dr. Frankenstein as “Frankenstein,” people get confused and think I’m referring to The Monster.

          In Son of Frankenstein (1939) Frankenstein’s Son laments how people in the town have started calling the monster creation “Frankenstein,” besmirching his family’s name.

    • Tony: First, thanks for commenting! It’s always good to hear from a listener for the first time.

      And I guarantee you that Josh was NOT referring to you when he made that remark during the show. The reason is simple: You left your comment regarding Frankentstein and the Monster on March 4th, and we recorded the episode two days BEFORE that, on March 2nd! So, when Josh was discussing it, your comment didn’t even exist yet!

      Again, thanks for taking the time to comment, and welcome!

        • Yes, Tony, welcome!

          No, Tony, I wasn’t getting after you. More than anything, I was just covering myself in case I accidentally called the monster “Frankenstein” during the course of the episode.

          I also just think it’s fascinating that people have been calling the monster by the name of it’s maker as far back as 1823, five years after the book came out, more than 100 years before the movie! Crazy!

          Speaking of names: Just for my own selfish reasons of remembering who I’m talking to, could you give us a last name, initial or nickname to go along with Tony? There are at least two other Tonys that post here, one who goes by “Tony Is on Fire” from New York and “Tony Smith” from New Jersey.

    • I tried to leave a comment on the new episode, but it didn’t seem to work, and I tried a second time. If it ends up that I left two comments that are essentially the same, please feel free to delete one.

      • I couldn’t find EITHER of your comments, Allyson. I even checked the SPAM folder. I just tested it and it worked. Try again. Maybe Jay was still fiddling with the blog settings when you posted.

  19. Great episode, fellas! I just wrapped up episode 84 about thirty seconds ago and have some things to say maybe, but first…

    I’m completely sold on the 2016 FRANKENSTEIN. I will give that a watch tomorrow night. Can’t wait. Thanks for such a thorough review. Ya know… I’ve always been a fan of the more “by the book” versions of Frankenstein’s monster when it comes to the many adaptations you can find out there. The classic Universal movies are always a treat, of course, but I favor the more intelligent, vocal monster when I can get him that way. I think it’s because I read Shelley’s novel before ever seeing a Frankenstein-related film, so for me, the mute, ambling monster falls flat. My favorite version of Frankenstein’s monster that I can think of right now is probably PENNY DREADFUL’s version. Yeah, he’s kind of a whiny bee-otch at times, but his dialogue is always beautiful and poetic, and his suffering is palpable as hell. He’s quite the character.

    Again, well done Jay, Dr. Shock, and Wolfman.

  20. Pingback: Universal Monsters Poll |

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *