Talk:1589: Frankenstein
I get all that—I came here to find out what the moon landing reference is all about. Any ideas? 108.162.249.191 04:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- xkcd has referred to "moon landing hoax" theories and their proponents (whom xkcd disparages) a few times, including 202 "YouTube", 258 "Conspiracy Theories", and 1074 "Moon Landing"; this is (at least) the 4th such reference. Mrob27 (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- He says that, because he is a MONSTER, and has a damaged brain from a complete moron instead of from a famous scientist. You know - the plot of the movie ;) 162.158.115.22 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Frankenstein A.K.A Elvis. Judging by that hairstyle Prack (talk)
- I suggest the moon landing reference is simply Randall's monster subverting the attempt to redefine the canon. If Randall succeeds in redefining the monster's name, then it also becomes canonical that the moon landings were faked. Randall is unlikely to agree with the canon he has just created.141.101.98.127 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- That was my thought too (just not formulated quite as clearly). 198.41.238.33 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. The monster saying that the moon landings were faked does not make anything surrounding the moon landings canon. It just makes it canon that the monster Frankenstein now holds this belief. Alternatively, in the story, The Doctor's creation was seen by the populace as an abomination amalgamated from human corpses. In the same vein, moon landing conspiracies are also amalgamated from several different sources each contributing their own theories to support the believer's general consensus, the moon landings were faked, and in the eyes of the populace this idea is an abomination. I'm surprised he didn't go for the low-hanging climate change is a hoax reference that would have been more recent for readers. In either case, it is fairly common for adherents of theories that run contrary to the scientific community to be labeled and name called by supporters of the scientific community. Especially in matters of religion.--R0hrshach (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- These are good points. It makes sense that Frankenstein was made with the brain of a conspiracy theorist. I don't think Frankenstein is trying to subvert The Doctor's or the comic author's canon-forming efforts, or anything so sophisticated. I do think these thoughts, in some form, should be in the article. It was not at all obvious why a moon landing hoax reference is in the comic, to me it was irrelevant noise. Mrob27 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- In Randall's version, claiming the moon landing fake is what makes Frankenstein an abomination, instead of being hideous and committing murder (note Randall's Frankenstein doesn't seem to have much of a bad look, and the story ends immediately). 141.101.66.23 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate the more succinct explanation. I added this as an additional explanation above after the bit about the derivative works. I've never read the original story so I referenced the wiki for accuracy. My apologies if I made a mistake or didn't take the analogy far enough. --R0hrshach (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- In Randall's version, claiming the moon landing fake is what makes Frankenstein an abomination, instead of being hideous and committing murder (note Randall's Frankenstein doesn't seem to have much of a bad look, and the story ends immediately). 141.101.66.23 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Re "Climate change is a hoax": Except for the small detail that a significant percentage of the population does, indeed, believe climate change is a hoax. I'm not one of them, but still. Anonymous 21:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- These are good points. It makes sense that Frankenstein was made with the brain of a conspiracy theorist. I don't think Frankenstein is trying to subvert The Doctor's or the comic author's canon-forming efforts, or anything so sophisticated. I do think these thoughts, in some form, should be in the article. It was not at all obvious why a moon landing hoax reference is in the comic, to me it was irrelevant noise. Mrob27 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. The monster saying that the moon landings were faked does not make anything surrounding the moon landings canon. It just makes it canon that the monster Frankenstein now holds this belief. Alternatively, in the story, The Doctor's creation was seen by the populace as an abomination amalgamated from human corpses. In the same vein, moon landing conspiracies are also amalgamated from several different sources each contributing their own theories to support the believer's general consensus, the moon landings were faked, and in the eyes of the populace this idea is an abomination. I'm surprised he didn't go for the low-hanging climate change is a hoax reference that would have been more recent for readers. In either case, it is fairly common for adherents of theories that run contrary to the scientific community to be labeled and name called by supporters of the scientific community. Especially in matters of religion.--R0hrshach (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- That was my thought too (just not formulated quite as clearly). 198.41.238.33 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
"The doctor" is a joke in itself because it's analog to "The monster" of the original, so it's likely to start the same discussions the other way around. 162.158.90.212 09:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- While it is also likely a direct callback to the Doctor Who naming issue by capitalizing the word "doctor", I agree that the alt-text is intended to make both "Doctor Frankenstein" or "The Doctor" correct, like the comic makes both "Frankenstein" and "the monster" both now canonically correct. "The Doctor" naming issue is also fairly commonly corrected, but for a different reason and is extremely specific to people who grew up watching the original show. For quite a while during the Classic era, The Doctor's actor at the time was credited as "Dr. Who" or "Doctor Who", despite often being introduced (by himself or his companions) as "The Doctor" during the actual dialogue of the show. So, I'm guessing that Randall's saying that either name in all three of these cases (the monster/Frankenstein, the doctor/Dr. Frankenstein, and The Doctor/Doctor Who) would be the correct name to use. -- PopeChris (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- The credits issue isn't just specific to people who grew up watching the classic show. The Ninth Doctor in 2005 was also credited as "Doctor Who", and Eccleston and Piper regularly referred to the character that way. Capaldi now does so as well (probably because he grew up in the era when the character was credited that way). Just as producer John Nathan-Turner went on a crusade in 1981 to get everyone to start calling the character "The Doctor", actor David Tennant did the same thing in 2006. --162.158.255.52 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Am I the only one thinking that the mouse over text is a matter of intentionally misunderstanding that the question wasn't about Dr. Who? --some guy108.162.238.175 13:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Or you can intentionally misunderstand it even further—if you accept this comic as your canon, The Doctor, as in the character from Doctor Who, created Frankenstein, as in the monster. And he also probably wrote the story too. Why not? He started Nero's fire, wrote half of Shakespeare's plays (and one of his companions inspired half of the rest), manipulated someone into killing JFK… --162.158.255.52 22:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the monster's "real" name, I thought either Dr. Frankenstein or the monster himself named him "Adam", as in "Adam and Eve". Anonymous 21:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- The monster uses that name, but only metaphorically. Early on, he calls himself "the Adam of your labors", and later he says that he would have been "your Adam" but instead became "your fallen angel". Meanwhile, the fact that Dr. Frankenstein refuses to give the monster a name is an intentional symbol of his rejection of his creation, which the monster picks up on, which is a big part of what he struggles with. So, to say that "his name is Adam" would be a big stretch, and missing the point of the story.
- While nobody ever explicitly calls him "Frankenstein's monster", Dr. Frankenstein calls him "the monster" once, and a few others refer to him as "your monster" or "the monster". The doctor calls him "the creature" far more often, and uses other descriptions like "the demon", "you vile insect", etc., but "Frankenstein's monster" seems like the best name for the character.
- Finally, calling him "Frankenstein" isn't that silly. Why shouldn't he have the same last name as his father? James Whale's movie called him Frankenstein, and almost everything that's come since has been based far more on Whale's movie than Shelley's book. (If you think electricity was involved in bringing him to life, or that he was made of an amalgam of parts from different people, you're no thinking of the book.) --162.158.255.52 22:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
When Cueball says "Frankenstein is alive! I am a modern Prometheus!" he is confusing things more. The original book's title is "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus" but now the Modern Prometheus and Frankenstein are different entities. Bartash (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
So basically there's nothing stopping me from renaming the monster "Kevin" if I want. 108.162.249.183 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
It's probably just my density, but I can't make sense of : "In Randall's version, he makes the same correlation by having Frankenstein claim the moon landings were faked which by inference produces the same results in The Doctor." Is this making the same point as above, that " In Randall's version, claiming the moon landing [is] fake is what makes Frankenstein an abomination.." -- ? I grasp (& even agree with) the latter, but the former loses me. 199.27.133.101 03:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
