Without Lugosi, the movie doesn´t work - Dracula's Daughter (1936) Discussion

[–] porfle 17 years ago

If he were in it, the movie would have been about him--he'd have dominated it. As is, the movie is about Countess Zaleska, as it is intended to be. On its own, I think the movie is very effective.

http://www.bumscorner.com
http://www.myspace.com/porfle

reply

[–] billingscaleb 16 years ago

They should have used James Whale's script. it would have featured bela lugosi as Dracula and probably would have been to Dracula what Bride Of Frankenstein was to the original.
unfortunately we're left with this huge missed opportunity.

reply

[–] freudified_n_funkified 16 years ago

Come on, it would have been weird to see Lugosi play the Gloria Holden part. Even for Bela, that's bizarre.

reply

[–] LarrupinLou 15 years ago

Come on, it would have been weird to see Lugosi play the Gloria Holden part. Even for Bela, that's bizarre.

Not if Ed Wood were the director. It would be a cross between "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and "Glen or Glenda." :-)

No blah, blah, blah!

reply

[–] Mr_McLaurel 15 years ago

I'll agree that this movie isn't up to the high standards of the best of Universal horror, mostly due to the lack of a name/face/voice like Lugosi's or Karloff's. But you have to admit it's pretty good considering.

What's the Spanish for drunken bum?

reply

[–] Skye_Reynolds 12 years ago

From what I've read, Bela Lugosi was originally attached to the project, but was dropped from it after openly criticizing the Laemmle family on their nepotism. He stated in an interview that they had attempted to hire their family, friends, and pets before being forced to allow him to play the title role in Dracula. He still received payment for the film though as part of a pre-existing agreement.

It really is a shame that it happened like that. I think that his presence in the film really would have elevated it a lot. Give us a flashback, have his ghost appear to his daughter, and have her hear his voice in her head from time to time. That's all that they really would have needed. Of course, they could have brought Dracula back throughout, but then I think The Return of Dracula would have probably been a more appropriate title than Dracula's Daughter.

reply

[–] Henahey41 8 years ago

I agree Mr_McLaurel

reply

[–] Morbius_Fitzgerald 9 years ago

I was surprised he didn't even show up for the cutaway shot of Dracula with a stake through the heart. Okay, it would've been a waste but its better than the Halloween mask that they got for it. I can't comprehend that at all, he couldn't show up for an hour or two just to shoot one shot of him in a coffin?

"I have always valued my lifelessness."

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dbone828 9 years ago

They should have used James Whale's script. it would have featured bela lugosi as Dracula and probably would have been to Dracula what Bride Of Frankenstein was to the original.
unfortunately we're left with this huge missed opportunity.

I agree completely.

I enjoyed Dracula's Daughter, but when I read about the original concept, my heart sank a little!

Also, having read that Dracula's backstory was meant to open the film, showing how he became cursed as a vampire and adopted a daughter before bringing us to Zaleska's present-day story makes Dracula's Daughter an appropriate title. Without the Lugosi opening however, calling the film Dracula's Daughter takes away some of the excitement and all of the surprise of the reveal when you know the entire time who Zaleska is. Without the Lugosi backstory, the film should have been called The Curse of Dracula or something like that.

reply

[–] FranLovesBetteD 8 years ago

I liked the movie very much, especially Gloria Holden's haunting performance and intriguing looks (which deserved to become iconic). I usually don't care for comic reliefs, but having the great Billy Bevan for that role is priceless. The Nan Grey scenes were touching and sexy, too.

What I really disliked was the romantic couple. They weren't appealing at all neither together nor separately. That leading man had zero charisma, IMHO.

Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop

reply

[–] ElectricWarlock 8 years ago

The movie might've been better if he was in it. One can't complain about having the great Bela Lugosi in a movie. But it was still good without him. Gloria Holden's performance really carried the film and she was excellent herself. She was beautiful, classy, mysterious, and a bit creepy all at the same time. I compare it to Hammer's Brides of Dracula. I did miss seeing Christopher Lee but it was still very good even without him.

reply

[–] Horror_Metal 8 years ago

At least Edward Van Sloan returned as Van Helsing, err... Von Helsing. Sorry.

Horror_Metal

reply