Movie name has released the covers of both the DVD and Blu-ray, and the side of the latter has Frankencreepy as two words: Franken Creepy. Should be corrected in the name of the article.

Scoob16 (talk) 08:07, June 7, 2014 (UTC)Scoob16

The spine of the DVD is however, visible in the trailer and has it as one word. So I'll wait and see what the final outcome is. Of course, you realise, that the name is a reference to Frankenstein (one word). Titles can be have how ever they want, but it still doesn't change the fact that Frankenstein is one word and the film's name is a reference to that. As I said, I'll wait to the front cover with the spine of the DVD is available first. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 08:52, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
I think that the spine of the DVD in the trailer is too blur to tell if it's one or two words. And besides, why would the DVD and the Blu-ray have it differently? I do understand that it's a reference to Frankenstein, and that it's one word, but that doesn't oblige the producers to make it one word. After all, "Creepy" is under "Franken" on the covers... But I accept your disbelief. Let's wait and see.
Scoob16 (talk) 17:39, June 9, 2014 (UTC)Scoob16

Velma's family

Are you sure that Otto von Dinkenstein (alias Dinkley) and his wife, the immigrants shown in Velma's story, are identical to her parents? Correct me if I'm wrong, but judging from the people's clothes, I'd say they were her (great)grandparents with their eldest child (too young to determine if boy or girl). --VerMa 18:10, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

I tried to get this confirmed on Twitter with the writer (but he chose to ignore me, inspite of the fact he had already answered my WNSD question). I guess it's speculation saying it was Velma and her parents who in fact came over, but there's nothing saying it wasn't them. It can't be a male because the hair looks too feminine, more like Velma's, but it can't be her mother because she married into the family. This film is supposed to be a callback right to the original series, adding to the retroness of it, and if they still started as teenagers in the late 60s, then that would make Velma a baby in the early-mid 50s, where immigration was still occuring.
Nothing about the film makes much sense, I find it very weakly written. Although, perhaps that would explain how Dr. Von Dinkenstein could take back the family name, then again, I thought it was at least implied he lived before the family came over to America. Of course, they could've came to America even before Mary Shelley made her story. It's terribly written that's all I can say, but perhaps because I'm only seeing it from my point of view. If you can get back to me on this it might change my view, and I'd change details. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 20:14, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, judging by the people's clothes, I assume they immigrated to America in the early 20th century if not by the end of the 19th. That would make Otto and his wife at least Velma's great-grandparents (assuming she was born late enough to be a young woman who knows Internet). Also, since baron Basil Von Dinkenstein was Velma's great-uncle, it means he was her (paternal) grandpa's brother; whoever said that the baby can't be Velma's great-aunt (maybe it's a shout-out to the Family Monster comic)? And whoever said that the family didn't use Von Dinkenstein name a bit longer, if only out of the habit? --VerMa 20:48, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose there could've been a brother once the immigrant amily settled in, and quie possibly others could've followed. I thought the baby was shown in such a way that it couldn't possibly not be Velma. Lastly, making a page for them could be confusing because in the last one she mentioned her Grampa Dinkley. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 22:22, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

What am I thinking? Of course they can have their own pages. A simple note would solve the problem. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 23:18, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

One more thing - I was relying on my (i.e. Polish) dub, where it was heavily implied that the baron was Velma's great-uncle (i.e. grandpa's brother); however, after comparing it to the original, to my surprise I found out that the attorney referred to him as her great-great-uncle (i.e. great-grandpa's brother). Of course, this still leaves place for Grampa Dinkley and great-aunt Viveka Von Dinkley (both of whom would then be one generation younger than the baron). Heck, it even allows to assume that Viveka was the immigrant baby and Grampa Dinkley was her younger brother. And this version has just become my personal head-canon. :) --VerMa 08:26, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

You know...

This movie reminds me a bit of Young Fankenstein.Pof203 (talk) 05:45, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.