One of the most accurate adaptations ever, still utilizes creative freedom differentiating the movie from the novel. Collage courtesy of senior Roslyn Risner.
Movie adaptations of the novel “Frankenstein” are notorious for inaccuracies with directors taking many unnecessary creative liberties, and the recent 2025 adaptation has left many San Luis Obispo High School students disappointed.
“The book has really captured the imaginations of humans for centuries and I think that’s why there have been so many adaptations of it. The idea of death and playing God is something so fascinating for us. There isn’t really a perfect adaptation because there’s no such thing. In this one, the director honed in on the craziness and unlikeable qualities of Victor,” said senior Charly Elston.
Though many films make distinct choices in order to differentiate themselves from the base content, many of the choices made in this movie were frustrating to those who’ve read the book.
“My only issue is that people complain about it not being accurate to the book, when, at the start of the credits, it says that it is meant to be a modern adaptation,” said junior Alex Bastidas.
The new version, produced by Guillermo del Toro, who also wrote the screenplay, is without a doubt a respectable cinematic work, but the inaccuracies are noticeably unnecessary.
“Just about every choice made in adapting Shelley’s story for Del Toro’s 2025 adaptation felt like the wrong choice. If the success of an adaptation is dependent on creating a piece of art that is valuable in its own right or true to the thematic complexity of the original, Del Toro’s adaptation fails on both counts,” said English teacher Serena Enzerink.
While there were a myriad of differences between the book and the novel, the movie is still considered successful when approached from a movie-goer’s perspective rather than a literary critic. This is especially true due to the movie’s tendency to tell the audience the main points rather than seeping the message in subtly and allowing people to come to their own conclusions.
“Boris Karloff’s ‘Frankenstein’ was such a popular film that it became iconic in its own right. All subsequent adaptations are actually based on this early film, rather than the original book. So much so, in fact, that a faithful film adaptation of the book would, ironically, be seen as a huge departure from the Frankenstein story film-going audiences are familiar with,” said junior Ethan Marr.
This is a common issue for book-to-movie adaptations produced a significant amount of time after a book’s initial release. Anyone who has read similar classic works knows that they are referred to as classics for a reason. Yet, today’s modern film industry consistently pushes for ‘modernization,’ which often alters the original message of the work.
“Perhaps I was naive to hope that Del Toro would be the one to finally do justice to Mary Shelley’s remarkable novel, which I have come to love so dearly. While I find more and more meaning in Shelley’s novel each time I get to reread and discuss it in AP Lit, I think the only value in Del Toro’s adaptation is in the conversations it has led me to with students just as passionate in their response to the movie (positive or negative) as myself,” said Enzerink.
All these opinions, while often negative, can still be an entertaining watch. Be warned, as being aware of the novel could greatly affect one’s perception of the film.
So it’s up to you, Tigers, watch it! Or don’t! Or watch it with a bunch of literary friends and nitpick it for kicks.
