Dude! What the FUCK?!!? (Dracula)
 

DUDE!!!

WHAT the FUCK?!!!!!!!?!!!!!!!?

Hi everyone, this thread is for no real reason, I just wanted to curse and yell and scream. No, well, actually, I might as well give this a real topic.

Which Classic Dracula do you prefer? Chris Lee? Lugosi? Carlos Villarias? Francis Lederer? Maybe John Carradine? And WHY do you prefer that one? Why, goddammit, WHY???

Hi Filmmaker as of right now I prefer Chistopher Lee but I would love to see Universals spanish version with Carlos Villarias just so I can compare both 1931 movies. One of the main reasons I prefer Lee is because he was Dracula 7 times and he did a good job each time.

Re: Dude! What the FUCK?!!? (Dracula)
 

Feeling a little stressed, dear? Deep breaths, deep breaths. Maybe some meditation would help. MediTation, not mediCation! LOL

My favorite Dracula is Christopher Lee. Very simply, he's the best!

i thought this was gonna be about the sequal to 'Dude, where's my car'

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Yeah, see, the problem I have is I like 3 of the Draculas for different reasons. I liked Lugosi's speaking voice and body language, Chris Lee's politeness instantly changing into animalistic frenzy, Carlos Villarias for his Lon Chaney impersonation...it's all good.

********************

Even though it was the script and not the performance, I liked Carradine in "House of Dracula" because he seemed realistically honorable to his "deal" with Boris Karloff. (Although, anyone who thinks entering into a business relationship with Dracula is a good idea is clearly kind of nuts.)

I felt bad for Dracula when he got screwed in that movie. Even he didn't deserve that. Used like a two-dollar extra!

Gary Oldman.

Gary did a pretty bitchin job as being Dracula no doubt but I still prefer Lee.

To be honest, I've never seen any form of Dracula as much more than camp trying to be scary.

Sure, many of the films are classics, but all that mincing around with wide eyes and swooshy capes and vanting to bite necks doesn't really do it for me (other vampires are much scarier - what about Barlow from 'Salem's Lot, and Van Helsing's daughter in the 1979 Dracula with Frank Langella: "Papa!"... brrr!).

I'll plump for Klaus Kinski's "Nosferatu" - not the official "Dracula" per-se, but close enough in spirit.

Well I think Bram Stoker wrote Dracula as being scary from other vampires by not looking like an ugly creature with fangs that will suck your blood. Stoker made Dracula scary by having look like a regular person. Stoker made out Dracula as being a guy like Donald Trump someone rich and atractive to women. Count Dracula didnt look like a Vampire and when you find out that he is its to late. Thats what made Dracula scary and he was dubbed the Prince of Darkness. I agree as far as downright ugly scary Vampires Graf Orlock and Barlow are pretty scary characters and thats why horror fans like them.

I choose Lugosi because he is the first Dracula I see when I visualize him.

1922 ftw ;)

I'VE GOT 46DDs EVERYBODY!!!!


So what's your favorite Ingmar Bergman film?

Gary Oldman's portrayal was easily the best in terms of staying true to the original 'gothic' character. He combined the constant lingering presence of death with very sexual overtones which, as we all know, were the two subjects the Victorians were most interested in.

Small footnote: Bram Stoker's widow successfully sued the makers of Nosferatu and prevented them from releasing the movie for quite a few years. They also sued the makers of a Hungarian adaptation and all the copies were destroyed. It was supposed to rival Nosferatu in terms of brilliance. I'd give anything to see that movie!

Ummm... NO.

Production of Nosferatu began in July of 1921. The film was released on May 4, 1922, less than a year later. Florence Stoker sued the filmmakers AFTER the release, and the case dragged on for years, all the while the film was being shown. She eventually won the case and all prints were ordered to be destroyed.

However, as we know- that didn't happen...

Yeah, maybe I got the chronology wrong there. When you think about it, there really isn't any part of the movie that isn't lifted directly from the book.

Give me your opinion on this; I was offered a signed 1st edition of Dracula by a local book dealer for £500. Are there any collectors on here who know if that is a good price? It struck me as being cheap but given that I'm in Ireland, there's probably a lot of his stuff floating about (kinda like a bat:)), thus driving prices down.

I am in no way an expert in rare books but something about that price just screams "FAKE!".

I would've thought the decimal point needed to move over one!

I have a soft spot for Udo Kier in "Blood For Dracula" :)

Best Dracula?
 

I liked Udo Kier's whiny little jerk portrayal of the Count. It was a variation I'd never really seen before. For a more traditional Dracula I like Christopher Lee. He has a large ominous presence and physicality that Lugosi lacked.

Rediscovering Horror Fiction

I imagine Dracula had a fairly substantial print run, first of all. And second of all, Stoker was in the habit of autographing things and giving out swag of various kinds. Not to mention the book is a hundred years old. A Stoker autograph would not be such a rare thing. A first edition, not quite so incomprehensible, because as I said, large print run which also drives down the price of rare books. A first edition of The Great Gatsby would be worth a fortune because Scribner's had little faith in the success of the book so did not print that large a run. So 500, which is about a thousand bucks in the states, is a reasonable price for the item I think. I'm not an expert, but I've had some experience with book dealers and know about what drives up the price of collectible books. Also, a dealer is probably not going to sell of a forgery of something as ubiquitous as Dracula and doesn't have all that much to gain from cheating you. Dealers make a profit by fucking the person who sells things to them, not the buyer.

Thanks for the advice. I think it's probably legit but I'm a little short right now. If the book comes back to me and I'm a bit more flush, I may pick it up. It would definitely make an excellent addition to the collection.

If we are going by pre 1969 Dracula actors I think it have to be Christopher Lee. Lugosi's voice and screen presence is amazing however in his roles as Dracula I do not think the script if the character as well. For example I am not the biggest fan of the 1931 Dracula. Do not get me wrong it is a great movie, however it is based on the theater play and not the book which differs allot from one another. Now the Christopher Lee movies are even further from the book, however that is what I like about them, they make a new character and new stories, while 1931 Dracula and later Lugosi movies, which do have their own storylines, try to portray Bram Stoker's character to a much greater degree and failing at it in my opinion.

My favorite Dracula film is the 1992 version with Gary Oldman, it stays true to the book and the only real deviation from it is that Mina's relationship with Dracula is played up, while in the books it is hardly there at all and when it is there is more of a one sided thing where Mina remains a virtuous Victorian wife until Dracula in effect forces himself on her, while in the movie she falls in love with Dracula, but other than that the movie follows Dracula much further. I also love the fact that Oldman do not overplay Dracula as much as both Lee and Lugosi do, the character feel more natural, more like this is the kind of guy you could meet on the street which makes the movie more spooky.

That being said for spookyness Dracula was never that great, Nosferatu is much more scary in my opinion than any Dracula movie I have seen, though it technically is a Dracula movie with the numbers filed off. However the vampire in that movie is creepy, Dracula in most versions on film is not.

Me to, it would be awesome if a roll of it had survived in some attic somewhere and where eventually discovered, and I might be a fool but I have not given up hope that it will one day happen.

From my experience this is a to good to be true price, at least unless the book itself is falling apart so what you are paying for is the signature. I would at least have that book authenticated before paying. The price is not so outrageously low that it can not be real, but I would ask about the condition of the book, and also about if the book have any papers proving it's authenticity, it might be a good deal, but I would be weary.