An aspect of her storytelling that I particularly enjoyed, and is renewed everytime I see yet another retelling, is how she spared the reader the spectacle of the engineering of my work. When I saw the first movie back in 1931 I was amazed how much of her book they disregarded in favor of demonstrating a 'technical' angle. In Mary's book there is virtually nothing expounding on the nuts-n-bolts side of the creation of the creature(s). In the film, there seems to be little else other than the doctor and his assistant in the lab-castle, and the scary-monster side of the creature as depicted. A whole section on the creation, and then some drama extracted out of that act, leading to significant elements that have no original corollary in the book. The whole idea ended up working much better in the first film sequel with the comedic angle reflecting the absurd act of appropriating just the book's title and ditching all of the substance.
In my mind I picture the people who made the film(s) traveling to Great Britain merely for the purpose of dancing on Mary Shelley's grave.
