Bram Stoker did not make this film
Why is it called Bram Stoker's Dracula?
shareIs it okay to make a movie called Drakula or could Universal protest? If so, then at least I'd make a movie set in the American south and call it Drakkala.
share
MovieChat Forums > Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Discussion > Bram Stoker did not make this film
in 1931 only universal could make an official Dracula having obtained the rights from his Widow the novel was in the public domain since the early 60s there was a Bram Stoker's Dracula in 1973 made for television starring Jack Palance but now most people call that Dan Curtis's Dracula (Dan Curtis the creator of Dark Shadows) but Bram Stoker was used to tell people that it would be a more faithful adaptation of the novel.
shareTo say calling this version Bram Stoker's Dracula is dishonest would be a huge understatement.
shareI did read somewhere it was originally suppose to be called Dracula The Untold Story when it was written as a TV movie.
shareSee, if they had just called it that I probably wouldn't have had as much of an issue with the movie (well, maybe). I was expecting to see a faithful adaptation of the book with this movie mainly because of its title, and now everytime I hear someone say it is I have to shake my head and wonder what that person was on or if we were watching a different movie. I'm not even really into Dracula and I found the writing of this movie to be really infuriating for the viewing experience and insulting to the source material, especially if you add the fact that the writer/director had the gall to call it Bram Stoker's Dracula when it was not.
sharePutting an author's name in the title is just following a comfortable pattern/a slave to your style.
shareThe Universal thing seems to have some posters confused
It doesn't matter that the novel is in public domain - that's a copyright issue.
Universal owns the name "Dracula" as a registered trademark as applied to motion pictures
Naming your movie "Drakula" MIGHT get around that trademark protection, but it would be up to Universal to decide whether they want to sue you, and THEN it would be up to the courts to decide
In situations like this, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" get around the trademark protection by clearly (and literally) distinguishing themselves from the one-word titles that Universal still owns
Now, no doubt adding the authors to the titles DOES add some gravitas ... but there's no question that trademark avoidance was the primary motivation in both cases
Well you see this all the time with movies based on a book or a play and especially superhero movies, and when they change something for the movie people think that the movie is how the source material is.
You see every adaptation of Dracula change stuff around, are any of them the most faithful? 1977 BBC series comes close.
They wanted the audience to get the erroneous impression that it was based completely on the novel by B.S.
It wasn't completely based on the novel.
I think it was his son who made this movie
share