Epic, I haven't read the book in years. Once I finish my nightstand stack (which is a half-dozen deep), I want to see if my recollection that someone wrote a book pretty recently about Shelley and Frankenstein, which I now find myself wanting to know more about.
I would have been startled at their surprise, as well. I found
the rape to flow naturally from the story as presented.
It didn't come out of nowhere, by a long shot (although, I can see it being surprising, if you're used to the Shelley). If it wouldn't have been utterly off the point, having him
come back a week later and killing her, rather than immediately would have been fascinating.
I wrote about this on Tumblr/Dreamwidth/LJ, but I found Miller's Creature to be much more human (in the sense posited by the show) than Cumberbatch's. Which meant that I had more compassion for the Creaturebatch. I would love to have a DVD of both, and I wish you could have seen the opening sequence with Cumberbatch (I really want to show it to my instructor and say, "lookit! motor learning!")
ita !, if I may also address the Holmes issue, I think he will do fine, but it will be a very different interpretation. His Frankenstein presented as much more worldly than Cumberbatch's, and I would assume that his Holmes will be the same: rather more Downey-ish than Cumberbatchian. I would expect him to be more of a right bastard on purpose.
So, I'd say it's the writing that I'm worried will suck, not him.
And this. This has been my concern pretty much from the get-go and at every step.
It's grown as an annual here, Scrappy, and flowers in the fall.
Ooh, mystery plants.
Hornbeam, maybe?
It's hard to imagine that with my toddlers. They have a great-great-grandfather who was born in 1844. Chances of a photo-opp are slim.
Yeah, my youngest great-grandparent was born in 1890. The rest were all in the 1860s and 1870s (of my known great-grandparents), so same with Lillian.
It didn't come out of nowhere, by a long shot
You're right, it wasn't that it was surprising, or out of character, just...disappointing maybe? (Happens to be a particular hot-button with me). Like I said - less compassion for the Creature than previously.
I found Miller's Creature to be much more human
Ooh, interesting assessment...and it was when he said he'd learned to lie that you knew it was all going to hell.
I thought the physicality of the creature made it so...something...in the book he comes off as practically erudite, and he still is, but you see his pain so much more clearly when it's coupled with the physical limitations.
I wish you could have seen the opening sequence with Cumberbatch
Me too!
His Frankenstein presented as much more worldly than Cumberbatch's
Maybe it's just as well that I saw "reverse cast" - since I got to see Miller stretch more than I expected (I figured he could do Prideful Asistocratic-type with his figurative hands tied behind his back). I've always been fond of Miller, I'm glad to know he has the acting chops in addition to a near-perfect profile.
hah! when I was in San Francisco I kept seeing these beautiful flowers - I'd never seen them before. I'd asked David what they were, but he didn't have an answer. Turns out they're brugmansia.
I am a botany ignoramus. But now I've got Todd to educate me.
My take from the plant talk--plants will kill you, best eat meat.
I hope they release a DVD of Frankenstein with both castings. That would be awesome.
I hope they release a DVD of Frankenstein with both castings. That would be awesome.
That and the Tennant/Tate Taming of the Shrew. I live in hope.
Yeah, my youngest great-grandparent was born in 1890. The rest were all in the 1860s and 1870s (of my known great-grandparents), so same with Lillian.
My youngest great-grandparents were born in 1892, and I was born in 1980. I knew three of my four grandparents, but none of my great-grandparents.
Well, it helps that one of my great-grandmothers lived to be 102. I think she was born in 1880 or so?
