The Ending (Spoilers)


ok, the ending. Drac's on a sheet of ice. Every step he tries to take is thwarted by Lee Harvey Friar-Tuck with a bolt action rifle. My question is.....


Why not just turn into a bat and fly away?

reply

They never mentioned that in this movie, did they? So I think it's not part of it's mythology. I don't think this is the only Dracula that couldn't turn into a bat.

reply

He could've turned into a bat (as he did earlier in the film)but it was the end and the script called for his death by "running water" (which I've never heard before and only in this movie).

"Klaatu barada nikto"

reply

Truly, this version of Dracula must have been the easiest to destroy. I happened to catch the part the other night where the clergyman was telling someone of all the ways to kill Dracula and he must have listed 6 or 7 different ways to do it.

reply

i think this is only known in the books. but when the movies were being made, the mythology never entered it.

reply

At the risk of looking like a complete dork (I prefer to think of myself as a Hammer Film aficionado), it is mentioned by Peter Cushing in Horror of Dracula that it is a common fallacy that vampires can turn into bats, wolves, etc.

So in the Christopher Lee versions, Dracula does not have that ability. I don't know why they decided to go that route, but so be it.

Incidentally, I'd never hear of the "running water" death either.

reply

Yes, but in Brides of Dracula, Baron Meinster is able to turn into a bat and Van Helsing was in that film, so that's a mystery. I think it is just a tiny plothole though. It doesn't take away from the quality of the film at all.

Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

reply

I'm just going to say, without having seen most of the other Dracula films, that this must be the most ridiculous vampire death ever filmed.

Who knew we could just drown them?

reply

I'm just going to say, without having seen most of the other Dracula films, that this must be the most ridiculous vampire death ever filmed.


It isn't. The film says a vampire can be drowned and cannot cross running water.

Why is that any more ridiculous than being terrified of a cross?

Who knew we could just drown them?


A opposed to what? The new mythos where they are friendly, don't even drink human blood and sit around in bars or go to school and fall in love with classmates?

reply

I have one even lamer.

In Dracula AD: 1972, a newly created vampire is destroyed by running water...When he's trapped in a shower. Seriously.

For me, in this film, it wasn't so much the running water it was the fact that Dracula -who's supposed to be so powerful and smart- is destroyed in such a comparatively in comparison to Horror of Dracula where he disintegrated in the morning sunlight, and Dracula Has Risen from the Grave where he's impaled on a cross.

reply

I believe the running water theory is mentioned in Stoker's novel as well, though never used. So it's always been part of the Dracula legend.

"Do you mind if I don't smoke?" ---Groucho Marx

reply

In Stoker's novel, it was said that a vampire couldn't cross running water. There was nothing about it being able to destroy them.

And the two later films that had vampires being destroyed by a running shower...If they go by that precedent, all you'd need to destroy a vampire is turn a garden hose on them.

reply

Right, that is true. I guess Hammer just took the not being able to cross running water thing, and turned it into a way to kill them. Yeah, pretty far-fetched.

"Do you mind if I don't smoke?" ---Groucho Marx

reply

I think budgetary requirements dictated that it would of cost too much for him to turn into a bat. Shame really!

reply