MovieChat Forums > House of Frankenstein (1944) Discussion > Continuity for Dracula???

Continuity for Dracula???

posted 16 years ago by Collydog
23 replies | jump to latest

In this film, Prof Lampini (George Zucco) tells Dr Niemann (Karloff) how he took the staked skeleton of Count Dracula from his castle and is now displaying it. However, Dracula was actually staked at his London home in Carfax Abby in "Dracula" (1931). Then, in the sequel "Dracula's Daughter" (1936), Countess Zaleska burns the Count's body to exorcise her vamprism. So, how could Lampini have retrieve the staked body of Dracula from Transylvania if his daughter cremated him in London?

Although this seems a stretch, I do recall once reading a book in which someone came up with an explanation for this. I believe that book was something along the lines of "Dracula in fiction and movies...", etc.

[–] JPfanatic93 16 years ago

I don't think there really is an explanation for this. Since the Draculas of both movies don't look alike anyway, I always asumed they're too different Count Draculas, like Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman were different Draculas.

[–] crawlfan-1 16 years ago

I never really thought of "Dracula's Daughter" when watching this movie. I just figured that after Dracula was staked in the first movie that Lampini took the coffin and skeleton. Simple as that.

[–] SteveM-1 16 years ago

Well, here's a way you can look at it.

In the first Dracula movie, Dracula was staked by Van Helsing but didn't disintegrate. In "Dracula's Daughter", he was still fully intact. Remember that, to the police who found him and Van Helsing, he appeared to be a normal man who had just been impaled. Dracula's Daughter then took the body and incinerated it during a ritual intended to cure her of her own Vampirism. Apparently, it didn't work, because she was a vampire for the rest of the movie.

So, let's say that when she burned Dracula's body, his skeleton was still intact as was the stake stuck in his heart. Possibly the fire wasn't hot enough to burn the bones or the heavy wooden stake, or maybe there was something supernatural involved. Maybe Dracula could be reduced to bones, but his bones were somehow indestructible, so that in the right conditions, he could rise again. The Stake, too, could have had some supernatural power to hold together to keep Dracula's heart from beating. It could have been ordinary wood until it stuck in his heart. Dracula's heart may have done something to the wood to make it indestructible.

Maybe Dracula's Daughter, when she realized that the ritual burning of his body did nothing to cure her, decided to place Dracula's bones back in his coffin. Near the end of the movie, she returned to Dracula's Castle in Transylvania. Perhaps she took Dracula's Coffin with his bones and the stake in the rib cage all back to Transylvania with her. Could have been out of sentiment. The coffin and bones then stayed at the Castle after Dracula's Daughter was destroyed. Years later, Lampini found the coffin, bones and stake at the castle and took it with him until Neimann met him.

Just an idea, but this could tie up the continuity between "Dracula", "Dracula's Daughter" and "House of Frankenstein".

[–] mlraymond 15 years ago

That's absolutely brilliant! I love this idea. I have the feeling you must have really enjoyed these old horror movies when you were a kid. I used to get so inspired after watching these movies, that I would write my own novelizations of the films, and even some sequels in the spirit of the originals. To this day, I get a strange feeling of being a participant in House of Frankenstein when John Carradine abducts beautiful Anne Gwynne in his coach. It's hard to explain, but Universal really created a believable world next door to our own, in which everyday people interacted regularly with vampires, werewolves, mad scientists and Egyptian mummies. As a kid, I really wanted to be part of that world.

And how about the classic sequence in The Werewolf of London where two boozy old ladies argue about renting a room to the mysterious Dr. Glendon, then pass the gin bottle back and forth as they spy on him through the keyhole?

And when he crossed the bridge, the phantoms came to meet him

[–] zboycoolcat 16 years ago

They kind of left continuity behind for the monster rally aspect.

[–] wallacesawyer 16 years ago

First half hour feels like a DRACULA film.

For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

[–] Blackjack254 16 years ago

they're going by the continuity of the original Bram Stoker Novel for this one in which Dracula does flee back to Transylvania at the end. (even Dracula's appearance in this film is more in line with the novel's discription of him)

Don't look into the Death Star, or you will die.

[–] JackApples 15 years ago

You could spend all day pointing out the continuity problems in the old Universal monster series.

How come the Frankenstein Monster can TALK in "Bride of Frankenstein" and then never speaks again? The Monster went blind at the end of "Ghost of Frankenstein"--how come he can see again in "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man"? Why do Jonathan and Mina Harker seem to have been erased from existence in "Dracula's Daughter"?

Eh.

There being no home video back then, the producers probably figured that the kids who came to see these movies just FORGOT what happened in the previous installment so they discarded whatever facts they wanted to for the sake of zooming through the movie in 70-odd minutes.

[–] omnidragon123 11 years ago

what errors? The monster was in a coma in Son and was not fully restored until near the end of Ghost. And he can't see in Frank meets the Wolfman. He walks with his arms out feeling for anything in his way. As for the Harkers why would they be in Daughter? To back up Van Helsing? They would just be dismissed as liars.

repeat to yourself it's just a show you should really just relax.
ever story is neverending

[–] mr-murph 15 years ago

There is a line in one of the movies which says something like: "Legend says that the Draculas were vampires." I rationalize that Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney, and John Carradine were all playing different characters, each named Dracula. Maybe they were all cousins or something.

[–] YGoodwriter 15 years ago

Lets not forget "the Son of Dracula" which was released the year before. How does that one fit in?

[–] liquidgardener 13 years ago

Assuming Carradine is a different member of the Dracula clan makes the most sense. Bela's big line, "I never drink.....wine," is shot to hell if Carradine is the same Dracula and is clearly seen sipping wine at the Husmann house.

And if you want to go continuity crazy, Larry Talbot. Killed by his father's silver cane in the original, yet keeps coming back. Here he's shot with the silver bullet (and not by the Lone Ranger), yet we see him in the next film. Oh well....

[–] Wombstar 12 years ago

He had to be shot with a silver bullet by someone who loved him.. clearly she didn't love him enough.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bradford-1 12 years ago

Just think of the "Draculas" as representing branches of Vlad the Impaler's family!
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

[–] greenbudgie 10 years ago

I would like to read that book about Dracula in fiction and movies. It would be a brave author who can try to strand all the Dracula films into any sort of continuity I would say. But it would intersting to see how they went about it. There is a very good attempt at stringing continuity for the Van Helsing character on 'The legend of the 7 Golden Vampires' board. I don't ever attempt to string continuity of the Dracula character between the various films. Just about all films with Dracula in the title only portray a pastiche of Bram Stoker's original Dracula character. All films want to use the name Dracula as pulling power for an audience.