MovieChat Forums > Fright Night Part 2 (1989) Discussion > Monster Mythos- werewolves and roses?

Monster Mythos- werewolves and roses?

posted 15 years ago by jenword
48 replies | jump to latest

There is a scene in FN2 that has always bothered me. Alex is (if I remember correctly, it's been a long time since I saw this film) in a library and gets attacked by a werewolf. She stuffs roses in its (mouth?) and wards it off/kills it. At some point, Charlie asks Alex how she knew to do this. She said she read "Dracula," because Charlie told her to read it, and learned about the roses in there. Well, I have read Dracula (specifically looking for this reference) and could not find it. Nor have I ever heard of warding off werewolves with roses! Silver bullets, yes, roses, no. Does anyone know what Alex was talking about, or what page in Dracula she was referencing?

I have seen reference to roses in fighting off monsters (in Stay Alive, it keeps the evil witch lady from attacking several characters), but I don't know if this holds any merit in actual myths, legends, or folklore. There IS a scene in Dracula (if I recall correctly) where an old woman tries to, or does succeed in giving Jonathan Harker a rose, to ward off evil, but I don't think there is any other specific reference to roses killing werewolves!

What the heck was Alex talking about? What's up with the roses?!? *(note, I googled "werewolves,roses", and came up empty handed).

[–] rabid-11 15 years ago

well i was never sure whether it was a werewolf or just a extra hairy vampire so maybe look for a reference to roses and vampires, i'm going to do some digging into that too, i'm intrigued.

[–] billy_bob_stapel 14 years ago

i know this topic is a year old just saying roses are a good repellent against vampires.

[–] arvid00013 14 years ago

Mexican vampires are said to be exetremily hairy and lack skin. Note: I read various vampire lore about 20 years ago

[–] messu_pepes 14 years ago

I think it's a mixup. According to some legends, werewolves can be repelled (or even killed) with a plant called wolfsbane. It has nothing to do with Dracula. I guess they tried to use the wolfsbane idea, but didn't want to explain the whole thing.

[–] billy_bob_stapel 14 years ago

wolfbane can repel werwolves but like i said roses repel vampires, there are other things such as running streams that block the way of a vampire as well as, due to their obsessive compulsive nature, rice corns are keeping vampires busy(they need to count them). there are also a few ways to get rid of vampires such as cutting of their heads after staking etc.

[–] libormortis 13 years ago

yea i am pretty sure its a vamp we are dealing with here in the library
noone ever mentioned a werewolf. Remeber the vampires can change ther shape into wolfs

[–] Ghosthead83-727-446622 13 years ago

You are absolutely right. I'm a huge Fright Night fanatic and Louie the chracter in question, is a vampire. He craves and drinks blood like the other vamps in the movie. I think he just favors the wolf aspect of being a vampire. If you follow the lore, as in the Fright Night series, they can transform into wolves, bats, mist, fog, ect. I'm a nerd I know, but I love these movies!

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

You are possibly correct about the theory of replacing roses for wolfsbane instead. I never knew that roses could cause a werewolf to be killed until I saw it in Fright Night II.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! www.usaupallnight.webs.com/

[–] ShadeSiren 13 years ago

My husband theorized the unusual florist Charlie got his roses from uses silver nitrate in the water to keep the roses extra fresh.....

(what? it sounded good!)

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

That is a good possible theory that your husband has and it sounds good to me!

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! www.usaupallnight.webs.com/

[–] mr-quick-1 13 years ago

Sigh. He wasn't a werewolf!!!!

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

Oh ok! Thanks for letting me know that he was not a werewolf.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com/

[–] mr-quick-1 13 years ago

You're welcome.

[–] CountVladDracula 13 years ago

That is a good possible theory that your husband has and it sounds good to me!

You make my head hurt. I can't believe you agreed with that. Did NO ONE notice she was talking about the Dracula NOVEL!? Does no one read anymore!? In the novel Dracula we are told that roses ARE used to ward off vampires. It never comes up in any movie but it's in the novel.

Oh, and watch Bram Stoker's Dracula if you don't read. Here's a newsflash, idiot Twilight / Underworld lovers. In Dracula the vampires could take wolf and humanoid wolf form!

I have headache now...

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

Sorry to hear that you have a headache now. No I have not read Bram Stoker's Dracula and it has been ages since I have seen the film that is taken from Bram Stoker's Dracula with Keauno Reeves in the film.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com

[–] CountVladDracula 13 years ago

The very scene that talks about roses tells you it's from the novel. Did you assume the script was lying or something or did you choose to ignore it because you're stuck in a 'vampires can't shapeshift' mindset which has severely hurt the remake?

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

When the remake comes out next month in August I am not going to pay my hard earned money to go watch that. Sorry man because I prefer the original over the remake. Shoot the remakes poster does not look as spooky as the original Fright Night poster!

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com

[–] CountVladDracula 13 years ago

I have to agree with you there.

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

For some reason the remake just does not appeal to me like the original Fright Night did. I remember when it came out. I was 13 years old and it seemed more appealing to me and creepier than the remake does. That is why sometimes if the original is just fine the way it was then do not touch it.

I even felt like this when Will Smith decided to come out with a remake of The Karate Kid. I am sorry, but the original was just fine the way it was. If Mr. Smith wanted to pay his respects to the movie from the 80's then call it something else. That is what Quentin TRarrentino did when he did his version of The Dirty Dozen, but called it something else. I loved The Dirty Dozen because you do not see a star cast like that put together in today's films at all!

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com

[–] CountVladDracula 13 years ago

I actually had high hopes for this remake. I thought David Tennant could have done a good job with Peter Vincent. ...Then I read the script and all my hopes were shattered.

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

See that is why I do not care for remakes at all because they could not get Peter Vincents character down the proper way. I will not pay to go see the remake though.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com

[–] CountVladDracula 13 years ago

Marti Noxon, the writer, actually thinks Horror movie hosts don't exist today. No, they exist. In fact there are more of them today than there were in 1985 because a lot of them are available online. Clearly she's never heard of Nostalgia Critic or Phelous or Elvira (Who revived her show in 2010). How is a Vegas Magician more relatable?

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

Plus, there is the Monster Channel which is on my website that I have dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT. I have friends that are Horror hosts from different parts of the United States that I had the chance to meet at the Horror Hound Convention back in March. Some of them are friends like I have sated and are on my Facebook account. Marti Noxon needs to do a little more research before writing something. Just being honest here about it.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com

[–] CountVladDracula 13 years ago

This remake is a disaster.

Charley Brewster = In the original he was a fan of classic horror and of the TV series Fright Night. In this remake he's a sneaker collector who abruptly had a growth spurt and his skin cleared up so to stay popular he decided to abandon his nerd friends. He even admits to doing this in the movie. The new Charley is a jerk. Charley in the original was a fan of classic Horror, now it's Evil Ed. Charley in the original was sweet and naive and cared about his friends. Charley in this version was oblivious to anything outside of himself and didn't even notice that a lot of his abandoned friends were disappearing!

Amy = Amy was a girl-next-door, a sweet and ordinary girl who became stunning only after Jerry Dandrige made her a vampire. In this version she's a 'hot chick' and a bit of a shallow bimbo who reminds Charley again and again that it 'helped' that he got taller and his skin cleared up. And she only tolerates him wearing a Battlestar Galactica watch at the end because it belonged to Ed.

Peter Vincent = Peter Vincent in the original was a timid has-been actor who used to be in old Hammer Horror-esque movies. (think of actor Chistopher Lee if he had never been in Lord of the Rings. He was one of those actors). He had a TV show called Fright Night where he reviewed and heckled old horror movies. Much like Mystery science theater 3000, Rifftrax or Nostalgia Critic. However Marti Noxon was stupid enough to think movie hosts don't exist today so she turned him into an alcoholic Vegas Magician whose family was killed by vampires. Unlike the original Peter Vincent he does not develop a backbone and become the character he always wanted to be. He does not become heroic or selfless. Instead he drinks a lot of booze to work up the nerve to help Charley. There's no real character development or growth. Instead of learning to care about others before himself he ends with wanting to capture a werewolf or a zombie for his act.

Evil Ed = In the original he was the skeptic and possibly closet homosexual which caused him social issues. In the remake he's the horror fan. He's the believer. And he's at least slightly homophobic.

Jerry Dangridge = In the original he tried to give Charley a chance to look the other way in regard to him. In the remake he goes on psycho rampage from the start. In the original he could take wolf, bat or mist form, not so much in this one. In the original he was looking for the look-a-like of a lost love that Amy resembled. In the remake... he has no real motivation at all.

Setting = The original setting was middle America, suburbia in Iowa. The remake is Vegas.

Do I really need to continue?

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

WOW! The remake is the total opposite of the original! Why didn't Marti Noxon just watch the original film, take notes from it to get the remake done properly. I can see her tweaking here and there some minor details in the remake, but it seems like she went through a overhaul to be honest with you in this remake version which is going to flop at the theaters! I will not watch it so I am boycotting the film!

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com

[–] CountVladDracula 13 years ago

Plus, there is the Monster Channel which is on my website that I have dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT. I have friends that are Horror hosts from different parts of the United States that I had the chance to meet at the Horror Hound Convention back in March. Some of them are friends like I have sated and are on my Facebook account. Marti Noxon needs to do a little more research before writing something. Just being honest here about it.

You are absolutely right. When she actually said that horror hosts don't exist anymore I suddenly had a sinking feeling about the movie. I don't think she has any real grasp of what's 'in' right now or the type of audience this film was intended to appeal to.

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

There you said it man! She did not do her homework or research for this remake at all so it will bomb at the movie theaters because she is not appealing to the right audience at all!

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com

[–] CountVladDracula 13 years ago

I agree with you completely. One thing though, I'm actually female. This screen name is a nod to a film I loved when I was younger.

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

Oh ok! Sorry about that, but thank you for the clarification on your gender. I understand and appreciate that you love your film. :)

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dust_devil_5 13 years ago

Yeah the werewolf character in this is definately a vampire. Vampires can turn into wolves. Although i don't know if that is part of the original Eastern European mythology. Dracula actually turns into a black dog in Stoker's book, when the ship he travels on to England (The Demetia) arrives in Whitby. Also roses are mentioned in the book and they are indeed in reference to warding off evil.
On 3 occassions when the werewolf/vampire is stalking Charley's girlfriend, the moth eating protector says "you're supposed to bite her on the neck", clearly pointing out that he is indeed a vampire. I reckon that the writer or maybe even the director thought it would add more variation and more fun to Regina's group.

[–] VinnieRattolle 13 years ago

Apparently nobody remembers that Evil Ed Thompson transformed into a full-fledged wolf mere moments before his death in the original film.

That said, yes, Louie is a vampire, but since he's never seen any guise other than himself and a wolf, it's very easy for people mistake him for a werewolf.

[–] Killer_Wolf 13 years ago

Louie looking like a werewolf was most likely Greg Cannom's personal touch to the make-up creations. Cannom also did the make-up fx for Bram Stoker's Dracula just a few years later. In addition to Dracula becoming an actual wolf, he took on a wolf-man appearance at one point. I think Cannom wanted to inject a lupine quality into a traditional vampire to mix things up a bit. It works.

[–] sburt4-831-484347 13 years ago

I loved that whole part "you are suppose to bite her on the neck". It cracked me up everytime!

[–] CountVladDracula 13 years ago

1. Vampires can take wolf form in traditional folklore. I always get a headache from people not grasping that Evil Ed, and later these characters are VAMPIRES! Seriously, get out of the Underworld / Twilight mindset and do yourself a favour and read a novel. This sort of stupidity is why they removed all the shapeshifting from that mess they're calling a remake.

2. In the Dracula novel Van Helsing mentions that wild roses, when placed on a grave, will keep a vampire from rising. This never comes up in any vampire movie but it's in the Dracula novel and in Eastern European folklore.

[–] AkrayBothorda 13 years ago

At some point in the book Abraham Van Helsing is educating his fellow vampire hunters on the weaknesses of their quarry, and mentions that placing a rose on a vampire's coffin prevents it from rising during the night.

The guy that attacks Alex is a vampire, just using a wolf-like form.

[–] Alfabeta 13 years ago

He doesn't melt when he gets killed, he turns back into his human form when he dies in the fountain, we never get to see his casket, he turns into a wolf only during the night, he's the only monster who can climb buildings, has hair all over and has a snout, he never changes into anything else (not even into smoke), and he is the only one who doesn't kill eat anyone until they make him "go bowling" (to stop prolonging things). Unintentionally or not, he's a werewolf, not a shape-shifting vampire.

On the other hand, he gets scared from the rose petals and they kill him without silver.

It is my belief that his character was written as a vampire in the script, but the make-up crew (or director) decided that they had enough of vampires in the movie, so they added a werewolf for the fun of it without changing the original screenplay. You will agree that the movie's inconsistent enough in general to allow my presumption.

[–] AkrayBothorda 13 years ago

All very good points, except for the bit about climbing walls, that's a vampire ability. Also he pulls a draft of blood while bowling.

I think you're probably correct, that the ambiguity stems from differing intentions between the script writer and make-up crew.

[–] ShinobiChris 13 years ago

You are close, but you need to consider the biblical connection. Rosebushes are thorny--so you get an association to the Christian icon of the crown of thorns. "Monsters hate religious stuff."--Monster Squad. Given the implications in many contemporary and even older writings on vampires, werewolves, etc--that Items or commodities associated with the persecution and resurrection of Christ tend to be the only valuable weapons against those "demonic" entities. In the film "Dracula 2000," we learn that this Dracula is actually Judas. And it provides the best explanation I have ever seen in film or book to describe the significance of silver as a weapon. It is purely symbolic of the 30 pieces of silver paid to him to betray Christ. His severe hatred for the silver he had taken and couldn't give back is what made silver powerful against him as a whole. Like silver, roses could be powerful in the symbolic sense--not simply because they are roses.

Where it gets bewildering is in getting "the facts" straight about the lore of each particular "mythical figure." You also have to factor in cultural and geographic differences in the origins of each myth. Vampires, in the Stoker myth, comes from a part of the European Continent that was constantly fought for by Christian states of the fallen Roman Empire and Turkish Muslims. Most of the paranoia and fear about the undead in these war-torn parts of the world were written about by Christians. People of other cultures had written about different creatures of the night and different methods of dealing with them based on what was available, usually a rare commodity, and spiritual or religious solutions for protection or overcoming evil. Voodoo, unless I am mistaken, places emphasis on gold as a spiritual weapon.

Anyhow, sorry for the long-winded response. Simply put, the rose is symbolic of love and the stem of the rose is symbolic of the crown of thorns. The idea is that symbolism can be a powerful weapon against one's enemies. I pretty much just described Christopher Nolan's Batman at the same time. lol

Cheers!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hailtoyin 12 years ago

Eh, either side has valid points and I like the werewolf idea better so I'm sticking with it. It gave them more flair: Coven leader, roller skating shemale (female in my mind to balance the scales), werewolf n bugeater. I like it!!
And remember people, there are many versions/interpretations of vampires and other monsters/supernatural beings. I say we are all right!!
I am the Queen of Your World

[–] prbronx5 12 years ago

They were all vampires. Louie being a big haired, rocker type just preferred the hairy wolf appearance he transformed into. I loved the bit when he shut that barking dog up!