How Frankenstein (2025) alters the original meaning! (It's never that simple...)

Ever since I learned about the actual story of Frankenstein and read the book, I have been enamored with how many layers and perspectives it has. Mary Shelly wrote the book after a night of brainstorming with fellow authors, and this night produced one of the most interesting, time-transcending stories. I feel like, in general, Frankenstein is one of those “you gotta know” things. It has been seen through so many different lenses and perspectives that when a new adaptation comes out, it is interesting to see the changes made and how intent and meaning play a part in that. 

I saw that the new Frankenstein adaptation by Guillermo Del Toro came out, and as soon as I realized I could watch it on Netflix, I did! My opinions shifted greatly throughout the movie, from enjoyment to questioning to dislike to content. I wanted to use this blog to talk about how the changes to Victor and the Creature Guillermo Del Toro makes contribute to how he views the message of Frankenstein, and the societal context in 2025. 

(Warning: spoilers for both the book and movie!!! But seriously, you had a couple of hundred years for the first one…)

Starting with changes to Victor Frankenstein, his entire family dynamic is altered. In the book, he has a loving and supportive father and mother, a (technically cousin (raised sister)) Elizabeth, and his younger brother William enters the picture when Victor was a teenager/adult. The family is fairly well off, so they have a caretaker named Justine for the young William. His mother only passes after both William and Justine have died at the hands of the monster, while taking care of Elizabeth’s scarlet fever. This is in great contrast to the film adaptation, where a strained relationship with his family is present. In the movie, his father is cruel and heartless towards young Victor, causing him to go to his mother for comfort. I believe this change is due to how Del Toro viewed Frankenstein: a story exploring parental relationships and nurture. His mother dies during William’s birth when Victor is young.  This change sparks Victor’s father to take a more nurturing role in William’s life, similar to that of how he was in the book. Essentially, Del Toro turns Victor into an emo teenager, one who lost his mother and is disliked by his father. This change was to reflect his own growing up, but I think his choices lead to a flat interpretation of Victor, one that is too “cut and dry” for real analysis. If he had a bad childhood, of course, he would want to be a selfish scientist! His father’s death enhances this as well, as Victor and William were separated. This change doesn’t have as much of a clear impact on Victor as the other alterations, but it still sets the stage for the later-to-come changes in the story. These changes are essential for Del Toro’s focus on parental influence and nurture, but I do not like how black and white they turn the story. It sets Victor as a less well-rounded character within his universe.

Another major change to Victor was his age and how he was able to make the creature. In the book, he was of college age with his dorm/apartment room and a dream. He had money from his family, but they were by no means poor, as portrayed in the movie. Victor, being of an older age, changes the degree of relatability the audience has to him. Being (mainly) college students who are reading this, I’m sure we can all relate to getting caught up in our studies and passions. Victor being older removes a layer of relatability, as we can still relate, but it is odd thinking we are the same as a 40-year-old. His funding is also heavily altered in the movie, opening the door to having a benefactor for this project. This plot line with Herr Harlander portrays greed as the only reason he so thoroughly supported Victor. I believe this plot line wasn’t so needed, as there were motives (mainly with the monster) included in the book that were not in the movie that portrayed this idea. 

A third (and last change to Victor that I will discuss today) is that he is very “out and proud” in the movie. He was very vocal about his ideas, allowing Elizabeth and many others to observe his experiments and showing off his ideas (and therefore his creature). This is not similar to how he is in the book, he was more private (to the point of isolation) and no one saw or met the monster during its creation and not until way after it was created. I think ultimately, most of the changes Del Toro implemented in his adaptation in Frankenstein point towards stripping away Victor’s good qualities, and portraying him as a one-dimensional (his only dimension being that he lost his mother at a young age) hardened and unlikeable character. This can reflect Del Toro’s more undesirable qualities, but I think it removes the depth and quality of analysis one can get out of the original Book Victor.

Bernie Wrightson for an adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein (1983)

Now for (some) of the changes made to the creature! In the opening scene of the movie, the creature is very violent. In the book, the monster does not have the fight scene that it does in the movie. I believe this change does not matter as much, as it benefits the filmography and pacing of a typical movie. As one watches the rest of the movie, though, this ruthlessness and cruelty from the creature do not make that much sense.

The creature in the book has a couple of major events that happen to him. What I view as the most important one is that of living with the De Lacey family (of which the grandfather is blind), which I am grateful that Del Toro chose to keep in his adaptation. I do believe that in the same way Del Toro removed Victor’s multidimensionality, he stripped back the creature's as well. He chooses to omit the creature accidentally killing the young girl after saving her from a river, the purposeful killing of young William, the framing of Justine, and the killing of Elizabeth at the Creature’s hands. The omission of these events (whether plain removal or alteration in the case of Elizabeth’s death) portrays a more pure creature–one that is easy to infantilize and view as a “poor thing” who didn’t show evil. The monster at first was not evil. It was a blank slate, not displaying goodness or badness. But because of the events that transpired, it was shaped by humanity around it, turning “human” in its consciousness and thoughts, and everything except his physical form.

Most of the omissions in the creature's story can be considered replaced by the creature and Elizabeth’s interactions. I think this is important to exploring Elizabeth’s character (which takes on a one-dimensional outlook in the book and most adaptations), but it leads the movie viewer to see Frankenstein as a newborn, further enhancing its “pure” description. 

Jacob Elordi as Frankenstein (2025)

Through these changes that Guillermo Del Toro makes, he is able to view the story through a nurture and parental perspective, one that unfortunately turns both Victor and the Creature into less dimensional characters, and omits several integral pieces of the original story. I believe that the ending (which is the last change I will mention in the movie) leaves the audience on a timely note. Its themes of optimism and hopefulness, although altering the meaning of the original Frankenstein, go along with the message Del Toro was striving for, and ultimately what our current society needs in these times of uncertainty and scariness. 

In general, I think this is a successful adaptation for what it was trying to achieve. I (obviously) prefer the original by Mary Shelly, but the changes made are not without reason (except for the omission of Henry Clerval. Where is Victor’s BFF? :C)

Thank you for reading! I hope to share maybe more of my ideas on Frankenstein later!