MovieChat Forums > Scars of Dracula (1970) Discussion > Scars Of Dracula is made of copy and pas...

Scars Of Dracula is made of copy and paste scenes from previous movies

posted 5 years ago by MickyMac (2940)
5 replies | jump to latest

Horror Of Dracula. Man goes to Castle Dracula who gets seduced by Dracula's bride who says Dracula is keeping her prisoner and tried to drink from him and he comes to a sticky end, a friend comes looking for him but villagers want him to go away but a waitress guides him to the castle and finds his friend dead.

Dracula Prince Of Darkness. Dracula is brought back by blood dripping on his remains with his skeleton and muscles forming, Dracula has a human man servant named Klove, man finds his brother dead in Dracula's chamber.

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave. Film openings with a dead Dracula victim, blonde heroine has a birthday, Dracula's servant deposits of vampire girl's body, Dracula's servant rebels against his master.

[–] Wuchak (8101) 3 years ago

Good insights. But, defending the film, sequels are supposed to carry on the traditions of prior films in the series while offering a new, entertaining story. The whole reason people watch sequels is to view something similar to the original film, but with nuances and a different story & additional characters.

[–] MickyMac (2940) 3 years ago

It's like if Horror Of Dracula is Thriller then Scars Of Dracula is Golimar where it looks and acts like Thriller but is a shameless rehashing so it can be an easy win with audiences.

Problem with sequels carrying on the traditions of the original is the original template is kind of hard to be effective at all when it's like a commonplace among audiences, like everyone knows what the threat is, everyone knows the basic templates of the previous films, all the surprises of the earlier films aren't there so your just watching these retreads with all the surprises you know are coming which takes you out of the experience of watching these films, it's been a case with the Terminator movies and the Alien films.

[–] Wuchak (8101) 3 years ago

Except for the score (which is exemplary in "Horror of") and the cheesy bats, I think "Scars of" took the template and made a more entertaining movie.

"Horror of" worked for the late 50s, but the abridged story loosely based on Stoker's novel is somehow unsatisfactory and there are too many 50's limitations IMHO.

Here's one curious abbreviation: In the book the story starts in Transylvania, switches to England with Dracula voyaging to London, but ends up back in Transylvania for the climax. Coppola's 1992 film adhered to this European globetrotting, but Hammer decided to simplify the geography where travel time is condensed to something akin to a European theme park rather than reality: The tale starts outside of Klausenburg, the capital of Transylvania in Central Romania at the time, with Drac's castle nearby, then switches to Karlstadt, in South-Central Germany, which is roughly 750 miles from Klausenburg in reality, yet a mere carriage drive away in this film, perhaps 20 miles.

[–] DoctorThirteen (10197) 3 years ago

It certainly has those elements, but I think each of those earlier films did it better. I love Hammer, and Lee's Dracula in particular, but Scars isn't one of my favourites.

[–] millsey72 (9547) 2 years ago

I rather see a carbon copy of a movie than one filled with plot holes