MovieChat Forums > Son of Frankenstein (1939) Discussion > Two glaring inconsistancies.

Two glaring inconsistancies.

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

I truly love these classic old movies. But even I acknowledge the silly inconsistancies in these films.

In the first two films, the interior of castle Frankenstein shows late medieval architecture (rooms with multiple doors, many with brief flights of stairs going to slightly higher hallways) but in this one the interior is totally and bizarrely different. The walls are bleak and windowless and the flights of stairs are crudely and crookedly hammered together with rough wood.

Moreso, in the first two films Dr. Frankenstein's lab is in an old tower keep miles away from his castle. Yet in this film it is within walking distance of his home. And tho destroyed at the end of the second film the rubble formed the shape of a rough pyramid, which is the shape of Frankensteins destroyed lab in THIS film.

Yet, while his lab was on the top floor in the tower it's down now on the bottom floor, mostly intact.

[–] pry_to 14 years ago

How about the castle explodes at the end of almost every Frankenstein film and it is back at the beginning of the next film... I don't think there is concentrated effort for continuity, moreso for entertainment. I enjoyed reading your post though, thank you! This is my favorite of the three mentioned films.

[–] Doghouse-6 14 years ago

That kind of inconsistency is pretty typical of all the films in the series. If you compare the sets of "Frankenstein" and "Bride Of Frankenstein," they really bear little resemblance to each other, as well. And in turn, the castle blown up by the villagers in the follow-up, "The Ghost Of Frankenstein," doesn't at all resemble that which we see here in "SOF."

Same goes for the home of Ludwig in "TGOF," which is depicted as an expansive estate at the edge of town, and the ruins of which are seen in "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman" as a more castle-like structure situated in the mountains just below a dam.

But each of the first four or five films has its own individual visual style, and the set designs simply reflect this.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] telegonus 13 years ago

There are those troublesome inconsistencies but I guess that back in the day most studios didn't think that movie audiences would remember such things. The house in the 1931 film is in the village, while in the 1935 sequel we see a much larger place on what appears to be the outskirts of town, more like a castle. I believe it even has a drawbridge. Maybe the Frankensteins had two homes; one in the villlage, for family business, the other somewhat further away. Then there's the Gothic monstrosity in Ghost, which seems even further from the town and looks like something out of a Grimm's fairy tale. The watchtower business is indeed puzzling, as it appears to have moved a considerable distance by the time 1939 rolled around, but then Dr. Praetorious did say it would be smashed to atoms thanks to the tons of dynamite concealed underneath. You'd think the doctor would have been wiser than to have done such a thing, then installed a lever so as to enable someone to blow the building up at the drop of a hat.

[–] millsey72 (10944) 2 years ago

I completely disagree

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13173) 2 years ago

Yes, this thread is from IMDb and these posters are long gone, but their premise is ridiculous.

Each Frankenstein film is a work unto itself and an exploration of Mary Shelley's original novel. These films were never meant to be a progressive series with a continuing story line.

[–] JosephQCat (706) 2 years ago

No harm in making such observations but yes each movie was a stand alone effort. Nobody in 1931 envisioned a rather lengthy franchise that took decades to rival (Star Wars). People came and went over the course of the "series." James Whale left after the first two and Karloff left after the third. No doubt there were changes further down the chain at Universal.

[–] millsey72 (10944) 2 years ago

So Fred Gwynne took over for Karloff?

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13173) 2 years ago

I think the castle burns and the monster dies at the end of every film. It's just silly to think these movies were a continuous story.

[–] FilmBuff (7436) 8 months ago

Yes and no. There is a definite continuity between the first two films. Bride of Frankenstein literally picks up where Frankenstein leaves off, with the villagers surrounding the burnt down mill. After that, there was only a loose continuity, but it's clear they were treating this as a single story. Note that Rathbone toasts a painting of Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein.

It's worth noting that when these films were being churned out, there was no home video, or really any way to watch these, so the writers, directors, and so forth were relying on memory (if they'd even seen the other films) to keep things straight.

As the series progresses there is definitely less of an effort to keep the stories and characters consistent, but that is also a byproduct of the time. Films then didn't have the same level of realism or consistency that is the norm today. We'd be shocked if Iron Man died at the end of Endgame then showed up alive with no explanation of how in the next film, but audiences at the time wouldn't question that. They'd have paid to see an Iron Man film, and wouldn't need an explanation of how Iron Man survived the last film.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15318) 8 months ago

'Note that Rathbone toasts a painting of Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein.'

That's a really nice touch seeing as Clive had died two years earlier.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7989) 2 years ago

I think the biggest continuity glitches are these.
1. The burning Windmill scene isn't mentioned.
2. The Bride for the Monster is never mentioned nor the entire Bride movie.
3. They state the monster was never defeated by anyone's actions. That he was stopped by getting struck by lightening. Yeah. It basically ignores both of the previous films.
Personally I prefer the first 2 and Ghost of Frankenstein to this.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13173) 2 years ago

Not glitches. This was not a series.

[–] thingmakersback (1444) 8 months ago

..This is not exactly true... There was an almost continuous attempt to tie the films together.
In Bride, the Monster comes up out of a hole beneath the burned windmill.
Son has the least continuity. Apparently the monster was not killed in an explosion but was hit by lightning at some point while wandering with Ygor.
Ghost has the monster covered in sulfur from the pit he fell in at the end of Son.
Meets the Wolfman was re-edited but had intended the monster to have Ygor's brain and be blind...

The films were always a series, but, just as with the Mummy films (starting with The Mummy's Hand), accurate continuity was of little interest.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15318) 8 months ago

'The films were always a series, but... accurate continuity was of little interest.

Exactly.

[–] FilmBuff (7436) 8 months ago

If I recall, the idea was that the monster survived the explosion, and had been out and about doing monster-y things, at which point he has struck by lightning. I don't know that any of that was explicitly stated, but that was the sense of it I got while watching.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15318) 8 months ago

The Universal horror movies were not exactly noted for their adherence to strict continuity!