- - Why Guillermo del Toro’s 'Frankenstein' Has Fans Divided Over Its Take on Mary Shelley’s Classic

Lauren Puckett-Pope, Erica GonzalesNovember 9, 2025 at 11:49 PM

0

Does Frankenstein Live Up to the Novel? Netflix

"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links."

Spoilers below.

A story so iconic and so mythologized as Mary Shelley’s 1818 horror novel Frankenstein invites frequent reinterpretation. So, perhaps, it was only a matter of time before legendary director (and monster connoisseur) Guillermo del Toro gave the story his signature spin. The long-awaited result is 2025’s Frankenstein, starring Oscar Isaac as the titular Prometheus and Jacob Elordi as his unloved Creature.The film first debuted at the Venice Film Festival this summer, and within moments of the credits rolling, early audiences began voicing their opinions as to whether or not del Toro had sufficiently captured the masterwork that is Shelley’s tale of ego and woe. Now, as the film streams on Netflix, that debate has expanded exponentially. Some fans adored del Toro’s redemptive take on Shelley’s gothic horror. Others expressed frustration over his numerous deviations from the text. Several voiced a desire to see a female director’s take on a woman’s story. Others responded that Frankenstein the novel doesn’t pass the “Bechdel test” either. Many pointed out the relevance of del Toro’s message in a world plagued with prejudice. Others took specific issue with the ending.Two ELLE editors decided to wade into the discourse from slightly different perspectives: One of us read the book before seeing the movie, and the other saw the movie before reading the book. Below, we break down seven of the biggest changes between Shelley’s novel and del Toro’s film, and discuss what we believe worked in translation—and what didn’t.

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Penguin Classics

$6.49 at amazon.com

No. 1: Victor’s backstory is more tragic in the film than in the book.

Lauren Puckett-Pope, culture writer: This is one of the changes that I didn’t necessarily love. I think what del Toro was trying to do—and, I’d argue, did effectively for the story he was telling—was provide Victor with a troubled upbringing to illustrate the cycle of trauma. His mother dies when he’s young, as she does in the book. But then del Toro gives Victor’s father both a new name and a new, crueler temperament. These experiences give Victor a lot of baggage, a chip on his shoulder, and this savior complex—this desire to conquer death.

From an emotional standpoint, having this cruel father makes Victor perhaps more empathetic. He is still the villain of this story, but we understand the context behind his behavior. Still, I loved how, in Shelley’s book, Victor doesn’t have that baggage. In fact, he had a perfectly charming, enchanted childhood. In the novel, Victor’s ambition and hubris are set up as though they’re spitting in the face of all these gifts he’s been blessed with. When he makes the monster, he shuts out everyone he loves. He sacrifices those relationships for the sake of his own ego. Shelley didn’t need or want to give him a tragic backstory to make that point. I thought that was powerful. But what did you think?

Erica Gonzales, deputy editor, culture: I agree. I liked that, in the book, Victor’s ambition and adventurousness are innate to him. But I agree the reason why these tragic points were added to Victor’s backstory in the film was to underscore this theme of toxic father-son relationships and generational trauma. Victor’s father is cruel to him and pushes him to excel; Victor does the same to the Creature. Mary Shelley’s book seems much more intended as a cautionary tale about ambition, especially during the Enlightenment, than what del Toro is after.

LPP: He’s arguing that you create the monster by being monstrous yourself, and the cycle continues. And I appreciate that for what it is. But I still loved Shelley’s approach, taking someone who has innumerable blessings and inadvertently throws them away, because I think that’s so true to life.

Oscar Isaac as Victor Frankenstein in Frankenstein. Ken Woroner/NetflixNo. 2: The character of Elizabeth plays a different role in the book than in the film.

LPP: Let’s talk about Elizabeth. In the book, she is Elizabeth Lavenza, the orphaned daughter of a nobleman who is brought up in the Frankenstein family as Victor’s “cousin” and eventual fiancée. In the movie, she is Lady Elizabeth Harlander, an entomologist and the niece of Henrich Harlander, an arms dealer who funds Victor’s scientific pursuits.

Both in the book and movie, Elizabeth represents this innate goodness. And it’s always a bit complicated for me when one of the sole female characters in a story is symbolic of that. What did you think about the changes to Elizabeth?

EG: I like that, in the film, she had her own thoughts about the will of men and their hubris. And I thought that her relationship with the Creature was a fascinating addition.

LPP: I liked that she had more opportunity to display her personality in the movie. She’s academically inclined and religious, sharp and quirky. She has strong opinions, many of which seem to represent Shelley’s own philosophies. At one point, she tells Victor that war “is what happens when ideas are pursued by force” and that “ideas are not worthwhile by themselves, I believe.” Sounds a lot like Mary Shelley!

EG: Let’s talk about her relationship with the Creature. In the book, it’s basically nonexistent until he kills her. In the movie, they have a really impactful relationship—not quite a romance, not quite mother-son, but there is a lot of affection and respect between them.

LPP: It’s telling that the only people in the movie who empathize with the Creature are a woman and a blind man. Del Toro has a lot to say in this film about perception.

EG: I believe the reason why a deep relationship between Elizabeth and the Creature works in the film—but wouldn’t have in the book—is because of what del Toro was trying to say about empathy. In the book, the monster is much more monstrous, not only in his appearance but in his actions, especially after he is repeatedly treated cruelly. The care Elizabeth shows the Creature in the movie…it’s like, oh, if you show warmth to somebody, they might show it back.

No. 3: The character of Henrich Harlander is new to the story.

LPP: Henrich Harlander is a Crimean War arms manufacturer dying of syphilis who funds Victor’s project so he can, you know, continue living. Maybe even forever! How did you feel about him?

EG: I think he was intended to act as this commentary on the commercial enterprise of war and weaponry—these men who fuel it and benefit from it. I could see parallels with the modern-day billionaires who want to live forever.

LPP: Exactly. Just like these modern-day men, Henrich has an attitude, like, “It’s totally fine for us to reanimate this corpse, doing this thing that could easily put people in danger, so long as it means I get to live forever.”

EG: I also thought it was interesting seeing how Victor responded to Henrich’s reveal. He’s horrified when he understands his benefactor’s true motives. And yet I still don’t know if we really needed Henrich in the story.

LPP: I don’t think a whole new character was necessary to the plot, but I do think Henrich is an interesting representation of a hubris akin to Victor’s. Victor’s is the hubris of a creator playing God, and Henrich’s is the hubris of the benefactor expecting to become beneficiary—and thus become God-like.

Mia Goth as Elizabeth in Frankenstein. Ken Woroner/NetflixNo. 4: In del Toro’s film, the making of the monster takes much longer.

LPP: In the movie, del Toro transplants the story’s action from around 1818 to the mid-1850s, during the Crimean War, in part so that Victor has easy access to a bunch of corpses. He doesn’t have to go digging in graves when he has so many dead soldiers right in front of him. But his actual process of doing the research, gathering these corpses—treating them with absolutely zero dignity or respect—and creating the monster? It takes much longer in the movie. In the book, Victor’s creation of the monster seemed to happen so fast.

EG: It did happen very fast.

LPP: Whereas, in the movie, there’s something so sickeningly satisfying about watching the manual labor of Victor sawing into legs—

EG: Plucking out eyeballs!

LPP: You witness the depths of his depravity and obsession, and it both disgusts and captivates you as an audience member. You learn about his desensitization in the book, but you don’t experience it in quite the same immersive way.

EG: And that’s so del Toro: He and production designer Tamara Deverell really shine in that sequence. That was them working their magic there.

No. 5: In Shelley’s book, the Creature is murderous. In the movie, he only ever acts in self-defense.

EG: What do we make of the missing murdering spree? In the book, Frankenstein’s monster kills Victor’s brother, William; he then frames a young woman, Justine, for that murder. Later, he kills Victor’s friend, Henry, and eventually Elizabeth herself. Neither Justine nor Henry is present in del Toro’s film, and in the movie, the Creature is violent—but only as a means of protecting himself.

LPP: I’ve gone back and forth about this a lot, and the conclusion I’ve come to is: I’m not sure this change is better or worse. But I do think it highlights how Shelley and del Toro have fundamentally different aims with their stories.

EG: Yes. If Shelley was commenting on the Prometheus experiment gone wrong—the real and horrible consequences of hubris—then del Toro is focusing more on how and why hurt people hurt people, and how there is nevertheless no excuse. The cycle must be broken.

LPP: The takeaways are intentionally different. And I do think that is already, understandably, frustrating a lot of Frankenstein fans. There are plenty of ways in which del Toro’s adaptation is a faithful one, but it also takes some major diversions both in plot and theme. Removing the Creature’s murder spree—and the subsequent questions of monstrousness versus morality—is one of them.

I missed witnessing the monster wrestling with his monstrousness. Is he responsible for it? Or is Victor responsible for unleashing it upon the world? Del Toro seems to be saying, “Well, you create the monster when you perceive him as one.” It’s not innate to him.

EG: Even the fact that the character is called the “Creature,” rather than the “monster,” in the film reveals so much about del Toro’s perspective. He has always been a proud monster empath. The Creature’s relationship with Elizabeth even reminded me of The Shape of Water.

Jacob Elordi as the Creature in Frankenstein. Ken Woroner/NetflixNo. 6: In del Toro’s film, Victor never attempts to make a bride for the monster.

LPP: In Shelley’s text, the monster demands Victor create a “companion” for him, or else he’ll continue to hunt and kill those Victor loves. And so Victor begins work on a second monster, but he ultimately stops himself from completing the task because he can’t bear the moral responsibility of releasing another one into the world. In del Toro’s movie, the Creature also demands that Victor create a partner for him, but Victor refuses. He never even begins an attempt.

EG: What did you make of that change?

LPP: It didn’t bother me. I think the plot result was the same: Victor understands he’s made a tragic error and can’t repeat it again.

EG: I think, because I read the book first, I missed seeing Victor’s second attempt at creation. Because, in the book, it further speaks to his hubris. Like, he can’t resist trying!

Also, in the book, the monster is so much more monstrous, and so Victor’s attempt to create another one is like his last resort at containing the mess he made. He can only hope that these two monsters will run away together and leave society alone. And, to your point about the twisted pleasure of watching the creation process on-screen, I was entertained, in Shelley’s book, by Victor’s frantic process of trying to re-create what he did the first time. And then the monster shows up at his door when he realizes Victor has stopped his work.

LPP: That part was so cool. The book is so much more ominous than the movie. And I think that’s where some of the criticisms of the film are valid, in that the book is more of a true Gothic horror. I wouldn’t characterize del Toro’s film as a horror at all.

EG: It’s more Romantic.

LPP: And I really, really did enjoy the horror of the book. It is chilling and atmospheric. So maybe that’s some of what we miss without the “bride” plot.

Oscar Isaac as Victor Frankenstein in Frankenstein. Ken Woroner/NetflixNo. 7: Del Toro’s ending takes a different approach.

LPP: This is an area where I feel pretty confident that the book’s ending is stronger than the movie’s ending. I am a notoriously earnest person—I love a redemptive ending! And I think the movie is effective in its messages of empathy and forgiveness. And yet, what I struggled with is… There is so much emotional build-up we witness in del Toro’s film, and then there’s not enough catharsis in the final moments between Victor and the Creature for me to believe that “all is well and forgiven.”

EG: I appreciate what del Toro was trying to do with this ending and his whole story: arriving at forgiveness, seeing the humanity in others, recognizing the damage you do by showing prejudice to someone. I appreciate that, in our very superhero-minded culture right now, the takeaway wasn’t, “I defeated the monster! Happily ever after!” Instead, we recognize the Creature as his own hurt being with the capacity to do good.

But a) something didn’t build and click for me in that ending scene, and b) visually, I think the scene suffered because it took place in the context of them sitting in that room on the captain’s ship. Which, mind you, is the first place they’ve been reunited since Victor tried to blow up the Creature with dynamite.

LPP: I love the intent of the scene. I really do. It made sense for the story del Toro was telling. But I feel there was a piece missing.

EG: It could have been so much stronger.

LPP: I also think the impact you’re left with is so different. In the book, you turn the last page, and there is this visceral horror you experience.

EG: It’s like the wind is knocked out of you.

LPP: Exactly. You do genuinely feel as if you’ve been punched in the gut. And, if you’ll allow me to extend a dumb metaphor, it’s as if del Toro’s aim is instead to give you a big breath of fresh air. You’re starting again. You’re moving forward. I just wish the breath had been fuller! You know what I’m saying?

EG: [Laughs.] No, absolutely. It was a bit of a short breath.

Jacob Elordi as the Creature and Oscar Isaac as Victor Frankenstein in Frankenstein. Ken Woroner/Netflix

EG: So, to wrap everything up: Do we feel as though del Toro’s film did justice to Shelley’s book?

LPP: In some important respects, yes. I think the film has an immense respect for Shelley’s novel. It even follows the same multi-act framing. You could feel the affection del Toro has for these characters in every frame. But I don’t think he’s telling the same story. It’s a companion piece. It’s as if you’re experiencing the same tale through a different vantage point.

EG: Yeah, I think it’s hard to say definitively whether he does Shelley’s novel justice. I think he operates from the clear desire to do so. But, in my personal experience of them both, I think the book was so airtight—a lot tighter than the film.

LPP: I would agree with that.

EG: But I also agree that these are companion pieces, and I think you should read and watch them together and in conversation with each other. Because they both have important things to say. It’s almost as if this is del Toro’s essay on Frankenstein. This is his thesis based on his interpretation of the book.

LPP: That’s the thing: I did love his thesis! It’s not the same thesis as Mary Shelley’s. But it comes from a place of real and remarkable reverence for her story.

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

You Might Also Like

The 15 Best Organic And Clean Shampoos For Any And All Hair Types

100 Gifts That Are $50 Or Under (And Look Way More Expensive Than They Actually Are)

Original Article on Source

Source: “AOL Entertainment”