Bram Stoker did not make this film - Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Discussion

[–] flo_rin108 9 years ago

Because only Universal Studios have the rights to use the Dracula title.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flo_rin108 9 years ago

And also because Coppola just likes to do that, he did the same with some of his other movies.

reply

[–] paulgilmore34 9 years ago

What other movies has he added the authors name abouv the movie title?? The Outsiders maybe I don't rememeber but I can't seem to remember any other movie hws done that too???

reply

[–] flo_rin108 9 years ago

I don't remember exactly of which movie I was thinking when I posted my comment. Probably about The Godfather, I read somewhere, that close to its release it got the author name in the title. Or maybe it was another movie, I'm behind the subject, can't really give a clear answer, sorry.

reply

[–] DickusBiggus (175) a year ago

The godfather in the DVD comentary he talk about the title of the movie and how it was his idea use the Mario Puzo's the Godfather and he did the same with Dracula

reply

[–] Thirdover4 9 years ago

Because only Universal Studios have the rights to use the Dracula title.

Not true

reply

[–] moosefeathers 9 years ago

Because only Universal Studios have the rights to use the Dracula title.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true

Maybe because they were touting that it was mostly taken from the book unlike the other movies who left out glaring parts.

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

reply

[–] Thirdover4 9 years ago

The point is to give the film a sense of gravitas. It's based on the literary source, it is the definitive version, etc. The Bella Lugosi film was actually based on a play that was based on a book. Most films, as you mentioned, took liberties with the story. Coppola wanted to make it in the tone of the novel which was less of a horror story and more of an adventure story. He said he used to read it to kids when he was a camp counselor as a youth.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7389) 4 years ago

He probably read an abridged version to his kids since I really don't see kids being able to stand the long speeches Van Helsing makes in the unabridged version. Then again the unabridged also has the messed up scene of Dracula feed his brides a baby. That'd give your kids nightmares.

reply

[–] Ocelot006-X4 9 years ago

If memory serves me correctly only Universal do in fact have the rights to use the title 'Dracula' on its own. Obviously that guy has heard and I've heard it too.

Sure you can call your movie Dracula 3D or whatever but Universal has exclusive rights to just 'Dracula'.

Porch Monkey 4 Life

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (20307) 4 years ago

Isn't Dracula in the public domain? Shouldn't anyone be able to use it?

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7389) 4 years ago

Yes. Dracula 2000 was made by Dimension films and Dracula Dead and Loving it was made by Castle Rock.

reply

[–] paulgilmore34 9 years ago

Even though it's not 100% faithful to the book it still has a lot more in movie from the book. So in retrospect it's more faithful to the book then any other Dracula movie. They added Bram stoker's Dracula because of that.

reply

[–] randy605 9 years ago

I prefer to say it contains portions from the book. The spirit of the book is completely missing in the movie. Cuppola has turned the two main Victorian ladies into whores and harlots. The bathroom humor Lucy speaks when talking about the equipment of one of her suitors would make Stoker get up and walk out. Hopkins is an indifferent Van Helsing which to me is one of the paramount characters in the book. Everything eventually revolves around Van Helsing since he is the knowledge source for all things about vampires and through him we learn what is going on with Dracula and the killings being experienced. I'm always hopeful when a new Dracula movie comes out but each time thus far I've been tremendously disappointed and its not as though we cant make a good Victorian novel into a movie these days. PBS did an excellent job recently with Bleak House. So it can be done. Cuppola did not do it. It was obvious he was after gross commercialism, big stars and lots of money from the box office. Not telling a great story.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

What’s the difference between a whore and a harlot?

reply

[–] Lord Rake (3747) 5 years ago

A harlot likes her eggs over-easy and a whore likes them sunny side up.

reply

[–] haberdasherer (88) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

Well, you learn something every day. I thought maybe the harlot, which is a French word, Frenched better than the whore.

Personally, prefer the word strumpet and the name Sally Roundheels.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8075) 5 years ago

Coppola has turned the two main Victorian ladies into whores and harlots.

Exaggerate much? They both had serious suitors and were on the verge of marriage. They were understandably curious about sex and so talked & joked about it, as best friends are wont to do, Victorian era or not.

There was nothing remotely approaching whoredom. Lucy only had sex with the Drac-beast in the garden after the vampire mesmerized her.

reply

[–] biggiebaby 9 years ago

Stoker died in 1912.. Figure it out.

reply

[–] joluboga 9 years ago

I didn't know that he was also in the Titanic. I don't remember him being portrayed in the movie, but it's been a long time since the last time I watched it.

reply

[–] moosefeathers 9 years ago

he wasn't on the Titanic.

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (20307) 4 years ago

He wasn't on the Titanic. He died of a stroke in London two weeks after Titanic sank.

Are you thinking of author Jacques Futrelle who died on Titanic?

reply

[–] millsey72 (9527) a year ago

Bram Stoker was writing a sequel to his original Dracula novel while on the titanic. Sadly its on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean somewhere

reply

[–] Darwinskid 9 years ago

To differentiate it from other versions, even though it takes liberties. Also to avoid potential issues with Universal, if memory serves me right.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] king_of_bob 8 years ago

I'm sorry, but is this a joke or are you actually this stupid?

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

reply

[–] mariobros_91 8 years ago

And also because Coppola just likes to do that, he did the same with some of his other movies.

What other movies has he added the authors name abouv the movie title?? The Outsiders maybe I don't rememeber but I can't seem to remember any other movie hws done that too???

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994), which was produced by Coppola.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mariobros_91 7 years ago

The 1994 film adaptation of Frankenstein was titled "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" for the same reasons posted in previous messages (either to avoid legal issues from Universal Studios since they claimed to own the rights of the "Frankenstein" title, the fact that contains portions of the novel despite taking liberties or following Coppola's tradition of putting the author's names in the titles of his movies that are adapted from novels).

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

What no one has brought up is that Universal Pictures owns the rights to the title DRACULA, on its own.

reply

[–] Darren (1113) 5 years ago

It's called that to let you know that unlike most movies about Dracula this movie is adapted from the original Bram Stoker novel of 1897, unlike almost all other movies featuring the character, which are adapted from the 1924 Hamilton Deane/John Balderston stage play. Coppola's film, though it takes numerous liberties, it does follow the plot of the book.

reply

[–] Gary O. (997) 5 years ago

It's called that to let you know that unlike most movies about Dracula this movie is adapted from the original Bram Stoker novel of 1897, unlike almost all other movies featuring the character, which are adapted from the 1924 Hamilton Deane/John Balderston stage play. Coppola's film, though it takes numerous liberties, it does follow the plot of the book.

I'd tend to disagree here. The basic theme of the book was a battle between good and evil. The English and van Helsing of course, were the good guys and the Count was the villain. While the film doses retain this, it also changes the dynamic somewhat when it added the rather sappy love story between the Count and Mina, who is a reincarnated Elisabeta.

The film version that is closest to the book was the 1977 BBC effort, "Count Dracula"

reply