Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Fallingtower

Van Helsing?

Recommended Posts

Cthulhudude

Yes, Shell obviously knew about the Greek myth (thus the subtitle) but if you think she was devoid of knowledge about the golem myth then I think you may be a wee bit wrong. The connections between the two stories are just too many to be coincidence. In fact I can’t think of anyone who knows about her work and the golem myth that hasn’t made the connection besides you. As for the reason she didn’t use a rabbi in the story is she was taking on man’s faith in science not mysticism. That or something as simple as artistic license. Take your pick. :)

 

Hell, there are even some theories that suggest Benjamin Franklin, the father of electricity, is the "Frank" in Frankenstein and who am I to say that they are wrong?

 

 

...but they are. :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cthulhudude

And back to the subject at hand…

 

I saw this flick this weekend. I didn’t want to; I was almost dragged to it, and…

 

IT SUCKED!!! :evil:

 

And that's all I got to say about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Camillus
ok, just something i think i need to point out here.

 

frankenstein isn't based on hebrew foklore.

 

as someone pointed out (in connection with the hebrew bit for some bizzare reason) it's subtitle is the modern prometheus.

 

prometheus was a titan in grecco-roman myth. he created man, along with his brother.

 

mary shelley was writing in a time when educated people knew grecco-roman myth. i somehow doubt she knew that much hebrew folklore, if any.

 

look at some romantic poetry. the likes of keats, byron and shelley (mary shelley's husband). it's FULL of grecco-roman references.

 

there are similarities to the golem myth, but these are coincidence. the story is about playing god, not about playing a rabi playing god.

 

I have to disagree with your rationale for suggesting that Prometheus was used in the subtitle because he created man. I would argue that, since he created humans on the instructions of Zeus he was acting within his powers. However when he gave man the gift of fire he did something that he had been specifically forbidden to do. It is the gifting of something that is not his to give that makes Frankenstein the modern Prometheus.

 

As to whether The Golem influenced her story. It's difficult to know; but she was well travelled and well read and the Golem does appear in one of Jakob Grimm's tales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Usernameless_Horror
I actually knew (of) a fellow who preferred the 'Dungeons & Dragons' Movie to the first of 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy.

 

I hope this heretic was chastised for his blasphemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fallingtower
I actually knew (of) a fellow who preferred the 'Dungeons & Dragons' Movie to the first of 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy.

 

I hope this heretic was chastised for his blasphemy.

 

It would have been pointless to chastise the fellow. He just didn't/doesn't have a clue and he was wearing a 1X Sailor Moon shirt on his 2X body :oops:. You know the type.

 

The following would easilly apply to said fellow:

Powergamer, Anime Porn freak, RIFTS devotee, mouth breather....

 

 

As far as VAN HELSING goes....I actually went to see it Sunday, but I have to withhold my review...why...I FELL ASLEEP!

Don't ask me how with all the booming non-stop action and white knuckle CGI visuals....I am going to see Hellboy again and will sneak into VH...they already got my ducats and I shan't give Stephan Sommers any more of my filthy lucre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick_B
mary shelley was writing in a time when educated people knew grecco-roman myth. i somehow doubt she knew that much hebrew folklore, if any.

 

Whilst I agree the Promethean myth was the core inspiration for Frankenstein, I'd actually find it odd if Shelley hadn't encountered the Golem myth in some shape or form. Aside from the similarities in the text, I think most educated people with any kind of interest in the occult/esoteric arts in the 19th Century probably couldn't have helped but come across it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Torp

Personally, I think van Helsing might be quite enjoyable. It will definitely not be horror, but it might very well be a nice little 2 hours (or something) of mindless action. It can't be as bad as, say, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and I enjoyed a few of the scenes in that movie as well. But I'm a sick weirdo. Oh, and the auto-crossbow is cool (once again, I'm a sick weirdo)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cthulhudude

I thought it could be mindless eye candy before seeing it as well so I went in to it with zero expectations and I still thought it sucked so that should tell you something. Also, while I really didn’t like LoEG I thought it was better than this piece of trash...

.

.

.

but the auto-crossbow was kind of cool. :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrTerric

Just been to see VH - and yep it is appalling.

 

First up, the CGI is ghasty, the plot (ha ha) ludicrous, the stunts ridiculous - there's LOTS of swinging about on wires in what I can only assume is some coke addled studios exec's idea of 'crossing over into that Spiderman market'.

 

BUT

 

I did enjoy it - as some dude on Ain't Cool News remarked, it's like a 200 million dollar Troma movie (but with no gratuitous nudity). You watch it breathless with sheer disbelief nad wonder what fresh lunacy is going to be hurled at you next.

 

As a more uselful reference, it's better than Underworld or the 2 Mummy flicks. But still a movie to rent but not buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fantomas

My wife & I went and watched Van Helsing a couple of nights ago. Went in expecting it to be a pulp style popcorn/fairyfloss film. Which it pretty much turned out to be. As to what I thought of it, well I enjoyed it for what it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cynick
As a more uselful reference, it's better than Underworld or the 2 Mummy flicks. But still a movie to rent but not buy.
At least the first Mummy film has a coherent plot and more rounded lead characters.

 

Finally got round to seeing it today after screening it for the past 2 weeks (too much going on to actually sit down and watch the films I'm showing sometimes :( ). All I can say is it was big, dumb fun. I wasn't expecting anything on the level of Gods & Monsters :wink:

 

Now that I have seen it, I can see a few potential plots for sequels. Mostly, just who exactly is Van Helsing? Dracula says VH murdered him centuries before and that he is 'the left hand of God'. Did I miss the explanation of this epithet? And VH says he remembers fighting the Romans at Masada (74AD). Was he taking the p*ss out of Karl, or was he telling the truth? He looks pretty good for a man pushing 1900 years old.

 

So once again, Hugh Jackman plays a man with a 'mysterious past which he can't remember'.

Coming soon: Van Helsing 2 - The origin movie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fallingtower

Maybe Wolverine is Van Helsing :idea:

 

Maybe only the 'Left Hand of God' could survive Adamantine inplantation?

 

How's that for a tie-in/crossover?

 

X-HELSING

 

or

 

Wolverine vs. Van Helsing

 

Sorry time to take my meds...for real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cynick

I thought I saw a subtle reference to Wolverine during the final fight between Dracula and the lycanthropised VH. At one point VH flexes his claws (looking a little bit silvery to me) and gouges a nearby stone pillar with them.

 

Or am I just reading too much into this piece of CGI fluff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cthulhudude

Well, Cynick, I thought the same thing so I think it's more than just coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mythos
At one point VH flexes his claws (looking a little bit silvery to me) and gouges a nearby stone pillar with them.

 

Or am I just reading too much into this piece of CGI fluff?

Everyone that I know feels the same way about that scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.