Frankenstein, or more accurately Frankenstein's Monster, is often depicted with green skin, despite Mary Shelley's original novel describing the color as having a yellow hue — so how did the iconic monster get its literally-trademarked appearance? The answer to that question lies in the history of Universal Studio's Frankenstein, a black and white classic horror film released in 1931. Although the movie is not solely responsible for how Frankenstein is conceived of in today's popular imagination, it does inform the icon's associations (at least in Western culture) arguably more so than any other text — including Mary Shelley's novel.

There are numerous elements of the Frankenstein's Monster in popular culture that don't exist in Shelley's groundbreaking novel. Not only is the monster intelligent and capable of speech in her original version, but he also is not explicitly made with sewn-together body parts — rather, the novel's narrator simply implies as much with his assertion that the "dissecting room and the slaughter-house furnished many of my materials." Neither "scars" nor "stitiches" are ever used when describing the creature's appearance (nor do the words ever appear in the text). In fact, the novel never actually describes how Frankenstein gives life to his creation, skipping over the dramatic process altogether and jumping ahead to the moment when it opens a "dull yellow eye."

Related: How Censorship Created Frankenstein's Most Iconic Line

Shelley's novel Frankenstein is actually strikingly different from what many associate with the "Frankenstein" story. Not only did Universal Studios popularize a version of Frankenstein's Monster that persists in pop culture today, but it also cemented a version of the story that actually supersedes Shelley's. Part of the reason why the stories are so different is because the 1931 Frankenstein movie actually adapted a play version of Frankenstein, which was a continuation of a long theater tradition of plays that began in 1823 with Richard Brinsley Peake's wildly-popular Presumption; or, the Fate of Frankenstein. Regardless, none could deny that Universal's green-skinned, flat-headed, and neck-bolted (technically electrodes, at least in the beginning) Creature is the quintessential version.

Why Universal Horror's Frankenstein Has Green Skin

Frankenstein Universal 1931

The Universal Studios movie Frankenstein features the Creature with green skin for one very good reason: it shows up better on black and white. The makeup Boris Karloff wore in the 1931 experimental film was a collaboration between the director, James Whale, and his makeup artist, the legendary Jack Pierce (who created most of the Universal Classic Monsters). The cinematography was done by Arthur Edeson — who was the director of photography for a number of significant black and white films, including Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon. In short, the makeup had to be designed to work well for the "Rembrandt" lighting that Edeson used for the film to achieve the dramatic high contrast aesthetic. Yellow doesn't reflect light on film the same way blue does. Copying a similar effect from his other monster movie, Dracula, Pierce developed a blue/green skin tone for Karloff that looked particularly ghastly under Edeson's lighting.

Frankenstein (1931) was a surprise hit for the studio. It was followed by the bigger-budget sequel Bride of Frankenstein in (1935), and then a number of horror b-movie sequels and crossovers like The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942) and House of Frankenstein (1944). Universal, not being one to potentially lose its cash cow property to imitators, had a strict trademark on the Creature's design. This meant that for decades, any movie or television series that depicted a Frankenstein's monster with green skin, a flat head, and neck bolts was risking a lawsuit (the Munsters was able to use the design because it was produced by Universal).

Hammer Horror Frankenstein (1957)

Hammer Horror Frankenstein

In 1957, Hammer Horror made history by releasing the first full-color Frankenstein movie: The Curse of Frankenstein. In this version, the Creature (played by Christopher Lee) has a disgusting, white, sickly complexion, and his flesh appears to be rotting away from the bone. While there are notable similarities to the Universal version of the monster — the flat hair in particular — Hammer was careful to make this image distinct from the Universal Horror version as to not face a lawsuit.

Related: Every Universal Monsters Dracula Movie Ranked From Worst To Best

Essentially, because Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was published in 1818 (second edition 1831), the story is in public domain — but Universal owns trademark and copyright on the 1931 film's visuals. There are plenty of anecdotes of smaller companies, like the independent British film production studio Hammer Films, receiving cautionary advice from Universal's lawyers about possible copyright infringement.

 Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein De Niro 1994

There are too many film iterations of Frankenstein's Monster to include in this list (some estimates suggest over 400), and the only culturally significant Frankenstein movie following the Hammer Film's version is Robert De Niro's turn in Kenneth Branagh's 1994 epic Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Hoping to do with Frankenstein what he had done with Hamlet, Branagh directed and starred in what was supposed to be the "most faithful" adaptation yet (a dubious claim at best). As one would expect, this version of the monster looked quite different from the "classic" Universal version.

De Niro's monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein had a much more human-looking complexion. It did possess a certain yellowish hue, but not noticeably more so than the rest of the film; after all, many scenes in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein are lit to imitate flickering candlelight, perhaps as Branagh's attempt to emphasize the early 19th-century setting. De Niro's monster was a menacing, intelligent monster who was plagued by his feelings of abandonment. He was a philosophical villain, and, like his novel counterpart, was well read. Unfortunately for Branagh, the public largely didn't respond positively to his take on Shelley's novel — and there hasn't been a blockbuster attempt to adapt the property since (unless one counts the mid-budget flop Victor Frankenstein, released in 2015).

It's worth noting that De Niro's version may act more like the version in Shelley's novel, but he still doesn't look like the novel's description. Branagh's version brings back the prominent scars, which again, are not in the book. In the novel, the creature is described as huge, possibly 8 feet tall. His skin is not only yellow, it's also thin — with his veins being visible underneath. He has "luxurious" black hair and large white teeth. As Frankenstein's narrator describes, he misguidedly chose features he believed would be "beautiful," only to discover — to his horror — that once animated, these features were a reminder of the perverted nature of his research. There is nothing beautiful about De Niro's version — who is also generally unlikable and unsympathetic — which is largely why the movie was so poorly reviewed. Perhaps if Guillermo del Toro ever makes a Universal Frankenstein movie, he'll find a way to honor both the book and the cultural icon.

Next: Frankenstein: The Monster's Iconic Walk Is Due To A Decades-Old Continuity Error