View Single Post
Old September 26 2010, 04:48 PM   #34
Warped9's Avatar
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: 1931 Frankenstein....

Christopher wrote: View Post
RJDiogenes wrote: View Post
Frankenstein does not suffer for lack of CGI any more than van Gogh suffered for lack of Photoshop.
Believe it or not I'd be inclined to say that about quite a few older films. What gets me about the 1933 King Kong isn't the f/x limitations, but rather the ideas behind them, what they were trying to convey. Ditto with something like Forbidden Planet and the 1968 Planet Of The Apes. Then you get to 2001 which effectively says, "screw cgi---lookee what we can do."

I have is the 75th anniversary edition of Frankenstein which includes a number of documentaries. One looks at the emergence and evolution of those early films. It's remarked upon that it's curious these films came out and became popular when they did. It's possible that in some respect they were a distraction from the real trails and horrors many people were dealing with at the time. It's also speculated that in a way these films were a subconscious expression of the horrors faced by survivors of WW1, where thousands of soldiers who would have died of their injuries before now survived but with terrible disfigurations.
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; September 26 2010 at 05:41 PM.
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote