>
>
ping
Susan Estrich would do well in the role, but I suppose that could be called type-casting.
No one has said Hillary yet.
parsy, who worries about this new crop of freepers.
By all means, let’s take what was originally a goofy movie and make it a super-money-losing stupid one.
Me bad....
Of the thousands of great stories waiting to be filmed, why does Hollywood always insist on remaking the classics? Answer: no imagination.
No re-make. Please!!! The original is perfect!!!
> >I think Hollywood has long missed the point of the novel. It is less a monster story than it is a treatise on ethics. This is why the monster doesn’t even need a name—because it is just an outgrowth of the ethical, moral and spiritual failure of Dr. Frankenstein.
In the modern world, the irony of this is staggering. This is because the scientist and physician who is ethical, moral and spiritual is today the outcast, the renegade. The amorality of Dr. Frankenstein is the norm. His research would be sponsored by the US government and several biomedical corporations.
Today, scientists and medical researchers actively seek out ethical barriers to violate. What in his day would have properly made Frankenstein an outcast would today earn him a Nobel prize, numerous patents for “reanimation of cadavers into soulless humanoids”, and the arguments would be cast in whether the monster itself should be patentable, and could it be freely used in experiments like a lab animal.
His peers would be deeply offended at anyone who objected to the grotesqueness, the unnatural inhumanity of his creations, as “anti-scientific”. Legislation would be proposed that after death, people should no longer have legal possession of their own bodies, as they are too valuable for scientific research into reanimation.
I think she looks better as a reanimated corpse.
I understand that Anne Hathaway will be starring in a biopic of Judy Garland!