Talk:Bride of Frankenstein

Since the Monster is not called 'Frankenstein', surely the Bride of Frankenstein is Elizabeth? She literaslly married Frankenstein in the film, and is important to the plot.

Yes, at the time of the first film, Colin Clive was being built up as a matinee idol, which was the reason for the inclusion of the love scenes in both films. Note Clive's wardrobe throughout these scenes is that of the archetypal 1930s matineee idol, and is almost out of place for the 'mad scientist' image. This continues right through to the jodphurs he's wearing in the chase at the end of the first film. As part of this image change, they renamed him 'Henry'.

• This is incorrect. The reason that Henry is named "Henry" is because in the 1927 stage adaptation of the Shelley book, playwright Peggy Webling switched the first name of two of the characters. Universal bought the rights to the Webling play and retained the names. Otto4711 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some note should be made that the Monster can speak in this movie wheras in the original, he cannot. mice 05:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I got 3 different links to the same page when I searched for "bride of Frankenstein" in the search bar... not sure how to mark them to be combined.

I felt the need to correct the motive behind the death of the little girl. Someone has written that she was murdered. This is not true. The Monster had no murderous intent when he tossed her into the pond. She was tossing flowers in, and ran out of them. She says "We have no more pretty flowers to toss in" (I'm paraphrasing), and The Monster reasons pretty things float, therefore the pretty little girl will float. Unfortunately, the end of the scene was cut out due to the length of the film, forever changing the meaning of the scene. The next scene is her father carrying her dead body, giving many the idea that she was murdered.

Does anyone else think that the Megadeth song "My Creation" would be a suitable addition to the trivia section. I'm not sure how to word it so I thought it would be best to mention it here instead. Peter Shillito 20:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Trivia sections are not desired in wikipedia, which is why you will often see this banner!

{{unreferenced|date=January 2008}}

TINYMark (Talk) 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Kudos to some attention for this classic film, though I'm surprised no one utilized the DVD. Anyway, to make the article thoroughly clean:

• The lead doesn't really need that cite, because the article discusses how that element was plucked from the book, and it should actually be more focused on the film's actual plot. I'm surprised Lanchester isn't mentioned, and to be a true summary there needs to be mention of the homosexual interpretations of the film, given Whale, Clive and Thesinger's sexualities.
• Either you remove the cast's names from the plot section, or you cut out the cast list. Considering the casting information is in the cast section and the cast section mostly contains trivia, I suggest deleting the cast section.
• The homosexual interpretations could have their own section. That paragraph is a tad large.
• The whole reception section could do with copyediting, as some of the middle paragraphs are bit short. If you have trouble, I'll copyedit after the above things are completed. Alientraveller (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Cite removed from lead. Lanchester name-checked and sentence added on gay interp.
• Cast section deleted. I do think the credit information is noteworthy so I moved it into the production section.

I am restoring the cast section, it seems to be a part of all movie articles as a list: see 300 (film) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Neither does Jaws, and we should look to FAs for guidance, not stone-cold copying. Alientraveller (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

300 (film) was an FA. Look st the top three FAs you worked on. Jaws appears to be an exception, and may have been cut for brevity, not utility. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Added section header for gay interp.
• I'm fine with short paragraphs but if you want to copyedit them before or after promotion I of course have no objection. Otto4711 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful. My further minor problems with the article:

• The Academy Awards cite has timed out. Cite the AMG page instead. AMG and IMDb should also be linked in the infobox too.
• Paragraphing is needed in Homosexual interpretations. Alientraveller (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Done and done, although breaking up the gay interp section just seems like it's making more of those dreaded short paragraphs. Otto4711 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, you've passed. Alientraveller (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that we need to be very careful with such phrases as "the presentation of Pretorius as a coded homosexual" and "'sissified' -- 'sissy' itself being Hollywood code for 'homosexual'". Whether or not any specific item should be understood as "code" and exactly what it should be understood to mean are notoriously subjective matters. If we don't cite such usage, it appears to be the opinion of the editor. (I'm not talking about references to possible gay subtexts in the film, which are already cited -- only about specific use of the possible WP:WEASEL term "code"/"coded".) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In case it's helpful to those working on this article ...
While searching today for something completely unrelated, I came across a reference to a journal article on music in this film:

"Wedding Bells for The Bride of Frankenstein: Symbols and Signifiers in the Music for a Classic Horror Film," Film-Philosophy, special edition 2001: 103-116.

It's by James Wierzbicki, who's Adjunct Associate Professor of Musicology at University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre & Dance. I managed to find a copy of the article online, which is at his site here. –Whitehorse1 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

On the subject of music, the article contains the statement: "Constantin Bakaleinikoff conducted 22 musicians to record the score in a single nine-hour session.[23]" supported by Curtis, James (1998). James Whale: A New World of Gods and Monsters. Boston, Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-19285-8, pg. 249. I would suggest that there has been a misinterpretation of the number of musicians as equal to the number of instrumental parts. While I cannot provide documentary evidence for the Bride's orchestra, it is fairly well-known that orchestras invariably assign several musicians to each instrumental string line, both because of the limited power of the string instruments, and to achieve the "chorus effect." Leopold Stokowski and Bell Lab engineers determined that the minimum number of violins needed to achieve "chorus effect" was six. The typical Hollywood studio orchestra did not have a full complement of strings as would be used in a symphony orchestra. Nonetheless, by using a reduced string section and keeping it closer to the microphones, the effect of a full orchestra could be attained. Typical studio orchestras would contain 50-60 players, indicating a half strength string section. If one listens to the Bride's score in the movie, the chorus effect in the string sections is easily heard.Gregoriusu (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Didn't anybody notice that Wikimedia Commons actually has a category about this movie with some free images that could be used ? Congratulations for the big work on this article. Thomas Guibal (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• In looking at the images there, none of them seem particularly beneficial to the article. Of the four, the one showing the four cast members is the best but is fairly redundant to the image of the Monster and Bride. That image is being used for illustration and commentary on the Bride's hairstyle and the existing image shows the hairstyle more clearly than the commons image. Otto4711 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

All right then. Anyway I've just begun the translation of the article in Esperanto, and might use some of these pictures, so I just wanted to let you know about them. Have a nice day, Thomas Guibal (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article notes that the Frankenstein depicted in the film has been interpreted as a Christ-like figure. It should perhaps mention the use of the term bride of Christ, which is a metaphor for the Ecclesia (church), likening the relationship between Christians and Jesus to a betrothal pointing to a future wedding. ADM (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I can't say as I see a connection between the two, and regardless there would need to be reliable sources discussing the notion, otherwise it's original research. Otto4711 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article has been Featured for a year, and I would like to have an annual review to ensure that changes made in the year meet Featured Article criteria. The diff of the changes over the year is seen here. The changes look mostly acceptable, but I wanted to touch on some of them.

• The credits in the "writer" field seem for the better; I don't think it was appropriate to pipe Frankenstein into "novel" because it goes against WP:EGG.
• "The Bride rejects the Monster however, resulting in her death, that of Pretorius, and apparently the Monster's own death, when he destroys Henry's laboratory." This sentence was removed from the lead section, likely because it was seen as a spoiler. Does this sentence belong in the concise overview of the article body?
• "Entertainment Weekly considers this film superior to Frankenstein." Information is verifiable, but should it be put in better context?
• The "Remake" section's sole citation no longer has any information about the planned remake. (I recommend re-titling the section "Planned remake" for accuracy.) We should update the citation and cite this sentence, "Brian Grazer and Sean Daniels will be producing, while Dirk Wittenborn would be co-writer." Possibly update the section with any new information.

Do other editors have any thoughts about these points or anything else about the article, regarding the changes or beyond them? Erik (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The remake section should be entirely removed. Its source reference is a blog, and it's WP:CRYSTAL. There aren't all that many failed film projects that are worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, and there's no limit to the promotional material that could be inserted about who is and might be involved. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I revised the section to have a little more historical context, and I think that the section qualifies for a stay. In addition, WP:CRYSTAL opposes unverifiable speculation, and it is verifiable that Universal had discussions with Neil Burger. Just cannot follow up on what has happened since. Erik (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

One thing that always struck me about the article is omission in the lead. As leads summarize an article's key points, it seemed the religious interpretations should be covered there. Granted, there's no need to include all points made, and sometimes judgement calls are made. Yet the article indicates it's central to the work, with "Christian imagery is 'hidden in plain sight' throughout the film" (emphasis mine). At present the lead covers only gay readings of the film, not religious readings.
I was surprised when it was a featured candidate this never came up during its candidacy nor in its good article assessment. ...naturally, I fully accept that could speak to there not being a need to include it. I did suggest a resource during its featured candidacy, above, though it doesn't seem it was useable; I figured primary contributors better placed to make changes. The lead copywriting is quite tight, so I never felt able to easily add it myself. –Whitehorse1 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have restored some redlinks that were (again) unlinked. I did this in accordance with how I understand Wikipedia:Red link. Please read Wikipedia:Red link before considering unlinking viable redlinks. However, if the consensus among wikipedia editors has changed such that redlinks are now to be shunned, then please campaign for that consensus to be reflected in the wording of Wikipedia:Red link. Thank you. I leave with a quote from that page:

Dealing with existing red links
In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name.

-84user (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's quite long. Isn't it better to subdivide it in 'Pre-Production', 'Casting', 'Filming' etc.? Moviefan (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It's only eight paragraphs and material from various stages of production is blended together. Arbitrarily breaking it up will only make it choppy. Otto4711 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

~~In one scene, Karl looks at a coffin and reads "she died in 1899", so the first 2 Frankenstein films are set in 1899.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymickymikepeter (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I thought the title of this movie was "Bride of Frankenstein" and that the poster at the top of this page, which includes "The" in the title was a mistake in the production of that poster. Still, I see that DisneyMetalhead moved the article to "The Bride of Frankenstein": [1]. Was this done with proper consideration? Attic Salt (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Sources such as Rotten Tomatoes, Brittanica, Roger Ebert and Turner Classic Movies all list the title without the definite article. IMDB has the "The" but mentions "Bride of Frankenstein" as the original title. I think the article should be moved back to the status quo title (this is an FA after all) and a new discussion arguing for the move should be started. Pinging DisneyMetalhead and Attic Salt.—indopug (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Indopug: and @Attic Salt: IMDb is maintained by filmmakers and studios. It's a more reliable source for film titles. Additionally, how is it that various posters for the film include the word "The" in the title if it was a mistake?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how posters got misproduced. But here is a link to the opening of the movie itself. It is clearly "Bride of Frankenstein", no "The": [2]. Check it out. Attic Salt (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Contrary to what @DisneyMetalhead: says, IMDb is not maintained by the filmmakers or studios. Per WP:RS/IMDb "IMDb content is mostly user-submitted and often subject to speculation, rumor, hoaxes, and inaccuracies. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged." I have a copy of the film and don't mind checking the title on the DVD, but give me a few hours to get home to confirm. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Key word being 'usually' in: "The use of IMDb on Wikipedia is usually considered...". IMDb isn't my sole source on this title. My source was the film posters. Various posters have "the" in the title, m8.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, watch the opening title of the film itself: [3]. Attic Salt (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Regardless, this is a featured article and I can't think of any major film article that has passed using IMDb as a source. Especially as most information gleamed from it can easily found in several other more reputable sites. The main point, your statement of it being maintained by the filmmakers or studios is wrong. As for the posters, we seem to have the A Fistful of Dollars (film posters). vs title screen Fistful of Dollars (film title) title argument. A large chunk of the film promotion calls the film The Bride of Frankenstein here, here, here, here. There is a mixture of them here. Whether we settle on one over the other, I think a simple notice on the spelling/phrasing as shown on the The Texas Chain Saw Massacre article's lead should suffice to explain the situation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Andrzejbanas:, @Indopug:, Since this article is about the movie, and not the posters, I suggest that the title of the article be restored to "Bride of Frankenstein". Perhaps @DisneyMetalhead: can do this for us? Attic Salt (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know enough about our film-article naming policies to chime in, but I feel the move should be reverted as a matter of procedure since it was neither uncontroversial nor done after a discussion.—indopug (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose to the name change after 85 years decided by a single user on the basis of the posters, when, as has been said, the film opens without the "The" --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), I couldn't find any consensus on what to title film in this situation. If it helps, the film is referred to simple as Bride of Frankenstein in the book Universal Horrors by Tom Weaver. My DVD from the Legacy Collection refers to the film as "Bride of Frankenstein" with no "The". The AFI Film Catalogue (here) also only calls it "Bride of Frankenstein". So outside promotional material, in more serious databases, historical overviews, and of course, as part of the film itself, it seems to be referred to as "Bride of Frankenstein". I'd lean towards that title because of that as it seems to be more common title. A mild hat note says it's titled "The Bride" couldn't hurt though just so we don't have to go through this situation again. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

But I agree with you   --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Haha, I wasn't trying to say against what you said, I was just following-up with the rest of the conversation. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear users: As the official film poster uses "The", how is it that these additional differing opinions even conflict with it? Additionally, perhaps we need to be looking at 'what is the on-screen title?' Has anyone done that yet? The film is 85 years old, yes but my move was intended to correct the film's title. I did not believe that is was going to be "controversial" as @Indopug: insinuates. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this article is about the movie, not the poster. And for the third time, here is the opening of the movie: [4]. Please look at it. Here's a link to the whole movie: [5] Attic Salt (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is the cast list for the movie, all the actors are from Wikipedia however this explains facts about how they got their character, the sources were I got the explanations for the Cast Lists are from IMDB: 94.203.114.75 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Boris Karloff as Frankenstein's Monster, Boris Karloff was paid $2,500 per week, for a total of $12,500, a large sum in the mid-30s but perhaps not enough to compensate the 48-year-old for playing the role in the elaborate make-up and heavy costume, exacerbating his already severe arthritis. Karloff lost 20 pounds during filming and had to lie down and rest between takes. The actor's distant cousin Quentin Crisp appeared in the remake The Bride (1985).
• Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein, Not long before filming began, Colin Clive broke a leg in a horse riding accident. Consequently, most of Henry Frankenstein's scenes were shot with him sitting.
• Elsa Lanchester as The Monster's Bride and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Arletta Duncan, who played Elizabeth's bridesmaid in Frankenstein (1931), was also originally considered to play the Bride. Elsa Lanchester was only 5'4" but for the role was placed on stilts that made her 7' tall. Lanchester had to spend days trussed up tightly in bandages. She needed to be fed by her dresser through a straw since even her fingers were wrapped. According to one story, one of her stand-ins had a screaming attack of claustrophobia. According to the actress, her Bride make-up took three hours for her face alone.
• Valerie Hobson as Elizabeth Frankenstein, Valerie Hobson, who plays Dr. Frankenstein's fiancé/bride in the film, was only 17 years old when she appeared in the film (Colin Clive, who portrayed Henry Frankenstein, was 35.), Hobson also played the wife of another scientist, Wilfred Glendon, the central character of "Werewolf of London," another Universal horror classic released the same year.
• Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Septimus Pretorius, Dr. Pretorius, a new creation, closely resembles the Monster's personality in the book, where he becomes a cold-blooded murderer. The film decided to have the Monster remain an "innocent" character who only kills in self-defense or by accident (until the final scenes), and so created the evil Pretorius to fill the villainous role from the book. Doctor Pretorious' full name is "Septimus Pretorious". That's Latin, and means "royal seven", a reference to the seven deadly sins - as well as an indicator of his true nature.
• Gavin Gordon as Lord Byron
• Douglas Walton as Percy Bysse Shelley, David Niven screen tested for the role of poet Percy Bysshe Shelley in the introductory sequence but was passed over.
• Dwight Frye as Karl Glutz, Uncle Glutz's nephew and Dr. Pretorius's assistant, Dwight Frye's character, Karl, is a combination of two different roles from the script. Originally there were two assistant helping in the lab. Whale decided only one was needed and combined the two as Karl.
• Ted Billings as Ludwig, Dr. Pretorius's assistant
• Lucien Prival as Frankenstein's Butler
• Una O'Connor as Minnie, Elsa Lanchester was not the only person to have a dual role in this film. In addition to her role as Minnie, Una O'Connor also appeared in the prologue, as Shelley's maid who is holding the leash as the dogs go off screen.
• E. E. Clive as The Burgomaster, One of the film's deleted sequences included the Monster killing the Burgomaster.
• O. P. Heggie as The Hermit, The blind hermit is a character taken directly from the Mary Shelley Frankenstein novel, where he was Monsieur De Lacey, an emigre from the French Revolution.
• Reginald Barlow as Hans, Father of the killed Girl Maria, The name of Little Maria's father has been changed from "Ludwig" in the original Frankenstein (1931) to "Hans" in this film.
• Mary Gordon as Hans's Wife
• Anne Darling as The Shepherdess
• J. Gunnis Davis as Uncle Glutz
• Walter Brennan as Peasant (uncredited, but with dialogue)
• John Carradine as Hunter (uncredited, but with dialogue), Carradine is one of the two hunters that appear at the hermit's cabin proclaiming the hermit's guest is in fact the monster. The actor later played Count Dracula in House of Frankenstein (1944) and House of Dracula (1945) (also costarring Frankenstein's monster), and Doctor Frankenstein (or a close analog) in Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask (1972) and Frankenstein Island (1981).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.62.102 (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

IMDB is not reliable and the article has a cast section. PrisonerB (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

See the 2010 discussion under "Annual review", above, and especially the comment made then that The remake section should be entirely removed. There aren't all that many failed film projects that are worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, and there's no limit to the promotional material that could be inserted about who is and might be involved. Since then, the Remake section has grown again with promotional details of remakes which have never been made. I think this section should be removed entirely What do others think? Masato.harada (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, Wikipedia policy is to only document remakes if they progress to shooting. Masato.harada (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:NFF Masato.harada (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article states: "This decision [of allowing the Monster to speak] also meant that Karloff could not remove his dental plate, so now his cheeks did not have the sunken look of the original film." I don't fully understand this. Shouldn't it be "had to remove his dental plate"? To be able to speak? And the dental plate was the prosthetic that gave him the sunken look? Something doesn't add up in that sentence. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Taking place immediately after the events of the earlier film". This is actually incorrect, the first scene takes place before the ending of the first film, i.e. before Henry was brought home and discovered to be alive. The first film ends with Henry being taken care by Elizabeth in his bedroom. Whereas, when Bride begins, Henry is still unconscious at the mill. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you'd like to correct it? Masato.harada (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"A lightning bolt generated by Strickfaden's equipment has become a stock scene, appearing in any number of films and television shows."

The lightning bolt used as stock footage was indeed ubiquitous (it appeared, among many other places, in the opening credits to the 1970s "The Incredible Hulk" show, and many other Universal TV productions in the 70s and 80s. However, it's connection to Kenneth Strickfaden, and his prop equipment is less certain. The citation is 2001 "The Frankenstein Film Sourcebook" -- that book contains a direct quote from 1984 "The Frankenstein Catalog" by Donald Glut, which is, as far as I know, the sole source for this connection. Donald Glut's earlier 1973 "The Frankenstein Legend" did not supply the Strickfaden connection, saying only: "One famous shot of real lightning, optically prolonged on the screen in Bride of Frankenstein, has become a famous stock shot."

Strickfaden's biographer, Harry Goldman, did not mention this shot either in his book "Dr. Frankenstein's Electrician".

I contacted Donald Glut in 2022 and asked him about the discrepancy between his 1973 and 1984 accounts. He wrote back, saying "Ken told me personally that he did the lightning bolt. I now think it was simply a cut-out with a flashing light behind it.". Ken Strickfaden was quite elderly between 1973 and 1984 (b1896) and would have been describing events long in the past. So I think the connection is uncertain, since this is the sole source and it's a second-hand account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbumw (talk • contribs) 23:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply