I've always avoided Xmas horror movies, thinking they were all just trashy slashers in Xmas drag - until I watched the Raised by Horror ep about them. Glad I did - all the movies cited were bangers, but RARE EXPORTS was the real standout for me. Thanks for the rec, what a great film!

I know some people are going to say "I don't need to use "AI", I can do it myself" is an arrogant statement, and... yeah, it is. I'm really proud of the things I can do. I worked really hard to be able to do them. I think that pride is earned. And I want other people to feel it, too.

You've mentioned the differences before, but I didn't realize they were quite so fundamental. It's been years since I read Shelley, and your previous comments already had me preparing to re-read both editions to compare. Bumping them up to the top of my TBR pile now.

Just to clarify... are you suggesting that Shelley changed her point in the 1831 edition in reaction to those early stage productions?

BTW, that's also not to say that a bad (by my definition) adaptation can't also be a good movie.

Sure, they *can.* In the case of the two examples I cited, they're public domain, so anybody can do whatever they like with them. I was simply expressing an opinion on how an adaptation *should* be done. Just my opinion, of course, about which no Hollywood producer needs to give a shit.

For instance, except for a few scenes, Coppola's Dracula follows the events of the book closely, but totally inverts the spirit of the novel, making a demonic monster into a romantic hero. Del Toro's Frankenstein, OTOH, changes lots of the book’s events, while still preserving Shelley's main point.

I'm fine with changes - different media require different approaches - as long as they preserve the intent and meaning/themes of the source. If you want to drastically change that, or argue with the source, make up your own damn story, and don't call it an "adaptation."

Especially when Grayson Hall is too drunk to remember her lines.