MovieChat Forums > Son of Frankenstein (1939) Discussion > Question about the very end (spoilers)

Question about the very end (spoilers)

posted 16 years ago by edbeaty-1
14 replies | jump to latest

Wait, can a 70-year-old movie even HAVE spoilers?

Anyway, my question is: why did they let Dr. Frankenstein hop on the train and leave at the end of the movie? And why did they cheerfully wave goodbye at the station? Sure, he killed the monster (at least until the next movie), and killed Ygor (again, until the next movie) but it was his fault that the monster came back to "life" and killed several people.

It just seems odd that they gave Frankenstein a hero's sendoff, when he should've been put in a cell. Even without proof of his role in the crime, the least the townspeople could've done is poke him with a rake and warn him never to return again.

[–] maloneyonweb 16 years ago

Perhaps they were overcome by the sulfur fumes... where did THAT come from since the original movie???
One does wonder if the free-flowing beer had addled their brains, instead of them lynching the family. Just one of several imponderables in the series...and, yet, I find myself watching these movies over and over, and enjoying the simplistic effects and simple dialogue. Ah, the old black-and-white movies.....

[–] edbeaty-1 16 years ago

Heh, I can see it now...
Townspeople: "Burn Them!"
Wolf Frankeinstein: "Beers for everybody...on me!"
Townspeople: "Yaaaay!!!"
:)

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hitfan 16 years ago

A better ending would be to not have a farewall at all and simply show "The End" after Basil and his wife embrace leaving it up to the viewer to imagine the aftermath of what had just happened.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sandcsmiley 16 years ago

My theory? The villager were overjoyed to see him leave. ;)

[–] jstover07 12 years ago

I honestly thought it was played for laughs...,,and I busted out laughing thinking that his leaving was such a joyous relief to them that they kind of gave him a sarcastic, happy send-off.

[–] Matuatay 12 years ago

In the next film didn't Frankenstein say that the consequences of the last film "drove his brother into exhile"? Is he saying he that wolf had been exhiled from the village of Frankenstein, or from the country of Germany? Either way, it doesn't seem like Wolf has as happy an ending as 'Son' would have us believe.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] denham 10 years ago

I suppose the villagers' thoughts might have been influenced by the sweetener of an equity stake in the Frankenstein estate, which the Baron had bequeathed on them. As a highly dubious analogy, Bran Castle - the so-called 'Dracula's Castle' in Transylvania - was recently put on the market at an asking price, so it is said, of $80 million, so if one assumes a village population of 800 (maybe high?) this would imply a handy $100,000 per villager. That would buy a lot of pitchforks.

I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken.

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 3 years ago

Wonder what they planned to do with it?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] millsey72 (10947) 3 years ago

Its a big plot hole. And I can't stand plot holes in movies