if you're a reader of the story, you know that the monster considered the doctor to be his father. so calling the monster Frankenstein is just accepting that perspective... not accepting it could be detrimental to you and your family and friends health.... don't piss off the monster is pretty much what I am saying
Woah, Frankenstein reboot idea, the Doctor was the puppet master of the monster so they were actually one in the same. The monster mimics all the Docs moves because replacing a brain is hard so he just used tech.
If Victor Frankenstein created "The Frankenstein Monster," then the monster would inherit his paternal surname, making them both Frankensteins proper. It's one of Victor's failings that he did not give "The Monster Frankenstein" a proper first name, along with his failing in abandoning his creation.
Oh man, I thought that was supposed to be Einstein, but then figured the joke is that it's his supposed son, Frank Einstein, which sounds a lot like "Frankenstein". I guess, the joke is a lot simpler than that...
The joke is Frankenstein is the doctor from the novel by the same name (the mad scientist). He ordered the beverage, but he confused the monster who is also waiting for his drink. The monster from the novel Frankenstein has no name, but people call him Frankenstein after the book's name, so it's a play on that confusion.
::: spoiler Transcription
A cartoon of a woman standing next to a coffee machine, holding out a takeaway coffee container. She smiles as she asks "Frankenstein?"
The same woman, now with no visible mouth, in a wider shot, showing two figures raising their hands and looking at each other: a man in a lab coat, glasses, and with grey frizzly hair, and a depiction of "Frankenstein's monster" as soon in popular culture.
:::
Sure, and yes, it's literally doing what alt text would do, for the same purpose (i.e. describe the image for the visually impaired). The "style" of these that I've seen (not just here) is pretty verbose, so I don't think that's necessarily an indication of llm use. Obviously I can't prove it either way, but I'd rather give these the benefit of the doubt, since this is useful work if it helps people follow along.
Yeah, that's fair. The mouth description probably seals it for me. I think it'd be more useful to describe the overall "nonplussed" expression than the literal description.
I actually tend to do these less verbose than what I've seen is common with others. I concentrate first on getting across the specific message of the post, and second on describing details that help get across the mood.
The wide shot is an important detail, because it explains why we didn't see the other subjects in the first frame. The lack of visible mouth felt important to me because it contrasts with the smile in the first frame, the lack of smile (or indeed any mouth) gives it a weirder feeling.
Your initial comment seemed like a fairly innocent question and I was happy to answer it, but seeing the thread continue, it's looking more like a baseless accusation. And that's dickhead behaviour. Don't do that. To me, or to others. It's extremely rude, and honestly provides nothing of value. It's especially galling to be accused when I'm spending my effort trying to make this a more inclusive space.
Back on Reddit, I was a co-mod of a sub with the guy who founded the "transcribers of Reddit", and that helped instill in me an appreciation for the value of accessibility.
It's not too hard to do and I'd encourage anyone to give it a go. There's no need for perfection, and you get a better sense of it as you get used to doing it.
Mastodon and Pixelfed both yell at users to provide alt text for their own posts, but unfortunately Lemmy's devs don't seem to have quite the same care for accessibility.
Since the creature depicted is the extremely unfaithful to the book Boris Karloff version, sure, he can be named Frankenstein. The book version would not be, though.
47 Comments
thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org · 48 pts · 261d
if you're a reader of the story, you know that the monster considered the doctor to be his father. so calling the monster Frankenstein is just accepting that perspective... not accepting it could be detrimental to you and your family and friends health.... don't piss off the monster is pretty much what I am saying
AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca · 20 pts · 261d
His name is Adam Frankenstein
palordrolap@fedia.io · 5 pts · 261d
His name was Robert Paulson.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 261d
Your MOM was Robert Paulsen!
RedAggroBest@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 260d
Bob had bitch-tits.
Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 261d
Shelley kinda designed them to be doppelgänger, so you could also argue that they are the same.
LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 261d
If only Mary Shelley knew the eternal chaos she caused by not giving that green monster a name.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 261d
He wasn't even green in the original story.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 261d
Adam?
buttnugget@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 260d
That was my memory! Wasn’t he named Adam?
LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 260d
Oh yeah. I think you're right. So why do so few people remember that?
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev · 5 pts · 260d
He's not named Adam, he only compares himself to the biblical Adam at some point.
return2ozma@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 261d
Junior
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev · 4 pts · 260d
He's not named Adam, he only compares himself to the biblical Adam at some point.
EnsignWashout@startrek.website · 6 pts · 260d
I don't recall the doctor being green, though?
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 23 pts · 261d
Woah, Frankenstein reboot idea, the Doctor was the puppet master of the monster so they were actually one in the same. The monster mimics all the Docs moves because replacing a brain is hard so he just used tech.
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 261d
the real monster is always in the comments
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 261d
the real monster is Hey what's that behind you?
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 261d
Maybe the real monster was the friends we met along the way 🤷🏻
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 261d
arudesalad@piefed.ca · 4 pts · 261d
Not quite the same idea but try reading "jekyll and hyde"
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 261d
Never heard of it. /s
toynbee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 261d
Does this mean that the monster and his creator had access to a TARDIS?
Archer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 261d
One and the same
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 261d
tetris11@feddit.uk · 13 pts · 261d
isn't it frunkenshtine
SandmanXC@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 261d
His name is Frankenstein Smonster
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 14 pts · 261d
If Victor Frankenstein created "The Frankenstein Monster," then the monster would inherit his paternal surname, making them both Frankensteins proper. It's one of Victor's failings that he did not give "The Monster Frankenstein" a proper first name, along with his failing in abandoning his creation.
LemUser@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 260d
Didn't Frankenstein's creation take on the name "Adam?"
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 260d
Shit maybe, if so I don't remember, gonna need to reread/watch something other than Young Frankenstein (which I watch yearly lol).
Still, then his name is Adam Frankenstein, he still inherits the surname (unless he chose one of those too and I forgot lol).
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 261d
Oh man, I thought that was supposed to be Einstein, but then figured the joke is that it's his supposed son, Frank Einstein, which sounds a lot like "Frankenstein". I guess, the joke is a lot simpler than that...
Bilaketari@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 260d
The joke is Frankenstein is the doctor from the novel by the same name (the mad scientist). He ordered the beverage, but he confused the monster who is also waiting for his drink. The monster from the novel Frankenstein has no name, but people call him Frankenstein after the book's name, so it's a play on that confusion.
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 260d
Ah, yeah, I did get it after looking at the comments, but thanks. 🙂
aeronmelon@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 261d
Awkward.
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 260d
People say “Frankenstein was the doctor”, but he never even graduated!
Zagorath@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 261d
::: spoiler Transcription A cartoon of a woman standing next to a coffee machine, holding out a takeaway coffee container. She smiles as she asks "Frankenstein?"
The same woman, now with no visible mouth, in a wider shot, showing two figures raising their hands and looking at each other: a man in a lab coat, glasses, and with grey frizzly hair, and a depiction of "Frankenstein's monster" as soon in popular culture. :::
vateso5074@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 261d
MajinBlayze@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 261d
Probably not. I think most of these are human volunteers
Zagorath@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 261d
You're right, it's just me 😊
vateso5074@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 261d
MajinBlayze@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 261d
Sure, and yes, it's literally doing what alt text would do, for the same purpose (i.e. describe the image for the visually impaired). The "style" of these that I've seen (not just here) is pretty verbose, so I don't think that's necessarily an indication of llm use. Obviously I can't prove it either way, but I'd rather give these the benefit of the doubt, since this is useful work if it helps people follow along.
vateso5074@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 261d
MajinBlayze@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 261d
Yeah, that's fair. The mouth description probably seals it for me. I think it'd be more useful to describe the overall "nonplussed" expression than the literal description.
Zagorath@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 261d
I actually tend to do these less verbose than what I've seen is common with others. I concentrate first on getting across the specific message of the post, and second on describing details that help get across the mood.
The wide shot is an important detail, because it explains why we didn't see the other subjects in the first frame. The lack of visible mouth felt important to me because it contrasts with the smile in the first frame, the lack of smile (or indeed any mouth) gives it a weirder feeling.
Your initial comment seemed like a fairly innocent question and I was happy to answer it, but seeing the thread continue, it's looking more like a baseless accusation. And that's dickhead behaviour. Don't do that. To me, or to others. It's extremely rude, and honestly provides nothing of value. It's especially galling to be accused when I'm spending my effort trying to make this a more inclusive space.
vateso5074@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 260d
Zagorath@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 261d
Nope, just me! 😊
Back on Reddit, I was a co-mod of a sub with the guy who founded the "transcribers of Reddit", and that helped instill in me an appreciation for the value of accessibility.
It's not too hard to do and I'd encourage anyone to give it a go. There's no need for perfection, and you get a better sense of it as you get used to doing it.
Mastodon and Pixelfed both yell at users to provide alt text for their own posts, but unfortunately Lemmy's devs don't seem to have quite the same care for accessibility.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 261d
no? or do you mean the transcript
vateso5074@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 261d
alltomorrowsregrets@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 261d
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org · 2 pts · 261d
Lol, I was about to react with an "ackshuly" that is the precise point of this cartoon. Well played.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 261d
Since the creature depicted is the extremely unfaithful to the book Boris Karloff version, sure, he can be named Frankenstein. The book version would not be, though.