MovieChat Forums > Dracula 2000 (2000) Discussion > Spoiler: So if Dracula is...

Spoiler: So if Dracula is...

posted 16 years ago by codenamecuckoo
41 replies | jump to latest

...Judas Iscariot, then where does that leave Vlad the Impaler? Vlad's existence is certainly acknowledged in the film. Simon says "the modern legends all date back to the 15th century warlord Dracula" and earlier on we even see part of Vlad's family tree (the place of one of his sons, Mihnea, is shown prominently).

So in Dracula 2000, did Judas just adopt Dracula's name? Or is it a Lordi scenario where Vlad Dracul names Judas as his heir and Judas succeeds him as prince as Vlad Dracula?

Similar problems arise in Blade: Trinity (I haven't seen it, but I've seen bits and pieces are read stuff) in which Dracula is a 7000-year-old Sumerian, and even in the BBC's 2006 film Dracula in which Dracula is said to be 900 years old in 1899 and in Hammer's Dracula in which Dracula is said to be 500 or 600 in 1885 (bearing in mind that Vlad lived from 1431 to 1476).

And yes, I think way too much about this sort of thing.

I live for two things. 1-science fiction. 2-reruns.
(\___/)MAKE BUNNY UR SIG
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] califlipmix 16 years ago

Dracula as Judas was a brilliant concept in this film and I wished the idea would have been explored more in depth... They should have based the entire film around the idea instead of the trite b.s that we got in the film.... Going back to your question I believe that Judas Iscariot WAS Vlad as well as Dracula... Maybe he had other well known/infamous aliases as well... There is a great story there that was never elaborated on in this very mediocre film.

[–] Celtic_Soup 16 years ago

Maybe Judas became Vlad as punishment? SaY God wanted Judas to suffer through time so he kept him alive as an evil bloodsucker? Nah.....Well anyway I like the idea of exploring the concept a bit more.

[–] codenamecuckoo 15 years ago

"Maybe he had other well known/infamous aliases as well..."

He did, actually. The first sequel, "Dracula II: Ascension", revealed that as well as Judas Iscariot and Vlad Tepes, he had been Gilles de Rais (mediaeval murderer), El Hazarid (no idea), Proximus (no idea), Dagobert (Frankish king perhaps), Uther (King Arthur's father) and Caligula (quite possibly insane Roman emperor).

The second sequel, "Dracula III: Legacy", provided a similar list of names, except this time they were various words for vampire and vampire-like beings from folklore across the world.

I live for two things. 1-science fiction. 2-reruns.
(\___/)MAKE BUNNY UR SIG
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[–] Griever_2112 15 years ago

I could be like the Immortals do it in the Highlander series, they live a life, disapper for a time and reimerge with a new identity...If Dracula is as old as some of the movies suggested, he could have been named the heir to Vlad Dracul.

However we must also take into great consideration that, the Dracula Vampire was a creation of Bram Stoker, and based on the former Prince Vlad Dracula history and legends. So the reality is, Dracula (vampire) is more of a character, who's history can be re-written to fit a story however needed. It kinda sucks, but it's been done with Superheroes and Villians for years. Especially since most storys of vampires and Dracula himself are never connected anyway.

I want to learn how to blow up *beep* with my mind.

[–] GaelinW 14 years ago

Caligula (quite possibly insane Roman emperor).

Interesting, but impossible. Caligula was born in 12AD. And if we accept that Christ died and Iscariot was hanged/turned to a vampire, somewhere around 33 AD, just 8 years before Caligula's death, then this is plain impossible.

Iscariot, as newly made vampire, made his was from Jerusalem to Rome and took over the identity of a well-known, well-liked (at the time) member of the Roman royal family? One with several siblings and other relatives still alive to notice the change?

I don't think so.

Making Dracula Judas was one of the cleverest explanations I've come across in vampire lore. As someone mentioned, using this as the core plot could have made a much better movie. Trying to follow it up, was just a disaster.

As for the original question. Making "the first vampire" older than the life of Vlad Tepes doesn't preclude him from being Dracula/Vlad Tepes. It merely means he had other IDs/alias before and after Vlad.

“If they let Jack do it his way the show would be just 12” – snorgtees.com

[–] BobFlame 13 years ago

It`s possible he WASN`T Caligula ! Judas/Vlad HIMSELF admitted The Centuries had made his Memories A Bit Hazy ! " And so many more I have long since forgotten " !

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin2 14 years ago

Caligula had a well documented backstory before the Crucifixion would have happened.

Nero would have worked better, who like Judas is affiliated with The Antichrist.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

[–] andrewshor 14 years ago

"They should have based the entire film around the idea instead of the trite b.s that we got in the film"

No they shouldn't. It doesn't make any sense for God to unleash immortal monster among humanity just to punish one guy. Especially considering that it was Jesus's intention all along to die for humanity and be resurrected. Dracula even points out how this doesn't make any sense: "You would never have become what you are without me. And now I feed on your children."

I enjoy this movie but it only works if you don't think about it too much. If everyone who gets bitten by a vampire becomes a vampire even if they get killed in the process, then vampires would've overrun the Earth before the 2nd century AD. Then there's the fact that the novel Dracula exists in the movie, but Lucy Westenra (with a slightly altered surname) and Dr Seward also exist as real people, even though the novel would've been published decades before they were born.

[–] shonuff31986 14 years ago

God also kills first born infants, so take it what you will with the idea of him releasing a plague on mankind. Also the film touches on the idea of destiny. The story is insinuating history repeats itself and whether theres any choice at all. I thought it was a beautiful idea in an otherwise shallow movie.

[–] BobFlame 13 years ago

Um , Abraham/Matthew Van Helsing explained this ! He said Stoker`s Novel was based on An Actual Event and slightly fictionalized to appeal to Victorian sensibilities !He also describes Dracula as " Not myth nor ramblings of A Mad Irishman " which is likely meant as A " Take That " to Anne Rice who in " Interview With A Vampire " had her Main Character ( A Cajun Vampire turned in The 19th Century ) dismiss Dracula and Many Ideas about Vampires made famous by Stoker`s Novel as The Latter !

[–] Deadman2319 15 years ago

He could be both? (shrug) best thing i can come up with

"I'm not a monster... I'm just ahead of the curve." ~ The Joker

[–] roxalien 15 years ago

As a Romanian I am quite happy with any scenario where Dracula is not Vlad the Impaler, a myth which did not originate from us and which is far from the actual historical truth.

[–] Deadman2319 15 years ago

Is it really so bad to have the world believe that one of your people was the son of satan?.......point taken

"I'm not a monster... I'm just ahead of the curve." ~ The Joker

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roxalien 15 years ago

"Dracul" does not mean at all Dragon. There is no such person named "Dracula Walacian" in the Romanian history. The name "Dracula Walacian" is not related to Vlad Tepes or his father in any way. "Walacian" is a word with no meaning in either English or Romanian.
"Valah" is a Slavic word and is the name given to the Romanians in the Middle Ages by other peoples, especially Slavic and German nations. It´s very old word not in use for quite a few generations.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roxalien 15 years ago

As I said, "Drac" does not mean "Dragon" in Romanian. It means "devil".

[–] codenamecuckoo 15 years ago

I was under the impression that it originally meant "dragon", but for some reason later got the meaning "devil".

Vlad II was Vlad Dracul because of the Order of the Dragon. Why would Vlad II call himself "Vlad the Devil"?

I live for two things. 1-science fiction. 2-reruns.
(\___/)MAKE BUNNY UR SIG
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[–] roxalien 15 years ago

"Dragon" is a word that entered the Romanian language fairly recently. We did not have the word 'dragon' in use in those times, there are no 'dragons' in the Romanian folklore. "Drac" is and was a Romanian word. Vlad II did not call himself that, just like Vlad Tepes did not call himself Vlad the Impaler.

[–] codenamecuckoo 15 years ago

That contradicts pretty much everything I've read about Vlad III.

I don't mean to sound confrontational, it's just that I've read in several places that "drac" means "dragon", (or perhaps "serpent"), and "draculea" means "son of the dragon".

Vlad II was a member of the Order of the Dragon. If he didn't call himself Dracul, and if his son didn't call himself Vlad Draculea, then where did that idea come from? Did someone just make it up and it has become accepted by historians?

I live for two things. 1-science fiction. 2-reruns.
(\___/)MAKE BUNNY UR SIG
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[–] Imperatrixx 15 years ago

"Drac" did mean "dragon" in very old times. But the meaning "devil" was also known at that time and was sometimes used by various enemies in order to sully Vlad's reputation. "Serpent" is simply "sarpe".

But the simple letter "a" doesn't mean "son of" especially since "Dracula" is not a Romanian word. The true name that Vlad III sometimes took on himself was "Draculea" (there are some diacritics in the word but imdb doesn't support them). This also doesn't mean "son of Dracul". To give a stupid example, it's like turning the word "Fluffy" into a name by making it "Fluffington". :)

These old rulers sometimes named themselves, but sometimes they didn't! Most of the times were given these names as attributes, because of their personalities and the actions that defined them. We had a "Stefan the Great" who was physically short but very brave so he received the surname "the Great". We had a "Mircea the Old" who wasn't old but he was very wise. I don't really know why Vlad Dracul was named so, maybe it did have something to do with the Order of what's-its-name. But, while Vlad III might have adopted the name "Draculea", he didn't willingly call himself Tepes ("tepes" means "impaler"). Instead, he was given this name by his people and by the time's historians because of his rather cruel habit to impale wrongdoers.

Lastly, there is no connection between Vlad III and Transilvania. Vlad was a ruler in Valahia, which is a totally different area. And, although there might be some vague references to Vlad in Stoker's book and maybe Stoker did inspire himself from Vlad's story, there isn't any explicit information that Stoker meant for Dracula to be the undead form of Vlad Tepes. So I really have no clue as to why people associate them so vehemently. After all, why Vlad III and not Vlad II? Beats me.

[–] codenamecuckoo 15 years ago

Well, Vlad III was born in Transylvania, so there's a connection there.

And I suppose when we want to give a full identity to Count Dracula, and there's a historical figure called Draculea who was a warrior, a ruler and a man who inflicted horrific punishments, it seems like an obvious choice.

I live for two things. 1-science fiction. 2-reruns.
(\___/)MAKE BUNNY UR SIG
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[–] CrowWoman 15 years ago

But, while Vlad III might have adopted the name "Draculea", he didn't willingly call himself Tepes ("tepes" means "impaler"). Instead, he was given this name by his people and by the time's historians because of his rather cruel habit to impale wrongdoers.

Not by his people. By his enemies.

Die Furcht ist mein Mantel
Die Nacht mein Revier

[–] vutescuv 14 years ago

Vlad II - also known as Vlad Dracul was the father of Vlad Impaler (Vlad Tepes), Radu the Handsome (Radu cel Frumos), Mircea II and Vlad Calugarul (Vlad the Monk). He also was member of the Order of the Dragon - order formed by Serbian nobles. The members were wearing an amulet resembling a dragon (or a drake, or a big snake with fangs and claws). Around 1400 - in a time of ignorance - was easy to mix the things, so common people - people that never heard of dragons but heard about devils a lot - naturally assumed that the scary thing the ruler is wearing around the neck was the devil. In romanian "dracul". He was killed at Tirgoviste along with his son Mircea, and Vlad III and Radu were took as hostages of Otoman Empire.

Vlad III - or Vlad the Impaler (Vlad Tepes) was also in the Order of the Dragon even from childhood (5 years). After he escaped from Otomans with his brother, he claimed and took the throne of Vallachia. I will not discuss here his methods of rulling, the country was in bad shape (coruption, thievery, robbery, and the list can go on) and the iron fist along with the terror he inspired made the roads safe once again. It is said that in his time you could let a bag full of gold in the street and come back after 3 days and find it untouched.

Here comes the interesting part. He had sons. Mihnea the Evil (Mircea cel Rau) and Vlad IV - who NEVER left Transilvanya, both born around 1460. About one hundred years after that and about 100 km north, countess Elizabeth Bathory was born. The same countess that killed over 600 virgins to bathe in their blood. She was died at age of 60 (and that's really old for that time)

Now draw the line and use your own mind.

[–] Crevan1986 14 years ago

He's called Vlad Dracul because he was in the Order of the Dragon. Draco is LATIN for Dragon. Latin was the language of science and the learned, and of the church. Drac came recently to mean Devil in Romanian, back then it was Dragon, from the latin Draco.

I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar.

[–] beobnoxious 15 years ago

there are no dragons in American folklore either there wild bill and jhonny appleseed but no dragons yet the Bible spoke of dragons for hundreds of years so the word in some form has been around since ancient times.
REalOad~ Its NOX Real Talk.

[–] BobFlame 13 years ago

To strike fear into his enemies , of course ! The Fact is , your PRECIOUS Vlad was NO HERO ! I mean , I feel for The Guy ! His history WAS tragic ! However , The Fact remains Voivode Vladislaus Basarab III ( AKA : Vlad Draculea as he called himself , Vlad Tepes as The Turks and Boyars called him )WAS A SOCIOPATH WHO ENJOYED TORTURING AND KILLING HIS ENEMIES ( Real OR Perceived ) ! He WAS NO HERO ! And , I find it HILARIOUS you Romanians STILL buy into The Propaganda of An Opportunistic Commie Dictator !

[–] Imperatrixx 13 years ago

Learn to type and lay off the meds.

__________

Quick! Edward's off to Italy, he's gonna sparkle himself to death!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 13 years ago

The Devil is The Dragon (Revelation 12).

[–] actionmanrandell 10 years ago

you claim to be romanian but the word for devil in Romanian is diavol

[–] isaac-pollack 15 years ago

I got its not vlad but Keyser soze,The turkish crime lord, who is really dracula
i mean it makes sense right? lived in a similar region, is a feared and mysterious figure, has been on occasion associated with the devil.

[–] BobFlame 13 years ago

1 . Keyser Soze is A FICTIONAL CHARACTER !
2 . Draculea is Romanian !
3 . The Romanians and The Turks WERE BITTER ENEMIES !

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin2 14 years ago

It is a bit overstated how much if even at all Stoker intended to affiliated Dracula with Vlad The Impaler, he originally wrote the Noble calling Count Wampyr until he stumble don that name reading through a book on Eastern European monarchs a week before publication.

In the novel, Dracula claims to be a Székely (Which Vlad was not): "We Szekelys have a right to be proud..." And later "Again, when, after the battle of Mohacs, we threw off the Hungarian yoke, we of the Dracula blood were amongst their leaders." (Chapter 3, pp 27). The Battle of Mohacs took place in 1526. Vlad died in 1476, and Dracula's castle is place din the Carpathian mountains.

The title Dracula, son of Dracul, could have been held by many descendants of families affiliated with the order of The Dragon, but Stoker was being Irish also drawing on many Irish mythical beings, like Abhartach and Dearg-due, Also in Irish droch fhola would be pronounced Drockola means "The man of bad blood" which sounds like a possible pun.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] w0rm9191 14 years ago

Judas as Dracula is one of the more inventive origins I've ever seen, as far as King Bloodsucker goes. It's also one of the reasons I really enjoy this film. It gives his actions a purpose, revenge on God, instead of just being some unexplained freak creature who happens to be immortal and lives by drinking blood.

"If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kevinb70 14 years ago

"It doesn't make any sense for God to unleash immortal monster among humanity just to punish one guy. "

I wasn't thinking about this while just watching it on showtime. Otherwise I would have picked up on his exact words. Could there have been some ambiguity as to whether dracula was talking about god or satan? Maybe satan did it! (While god did not intervene)

Anyway... great origin of dracula movie. Nice concept and it really fits in: silver, cross. I consider each dracula installment in their own little universe, one dracula movie does not have to be true to other movies or Stoker's character.

[–] xthe_shiznitx 13 years ago

Maybe it wasn't punishment but reward?
As for Vlad being some type of argument against the possibility of Dracula being Judas originally, maybe Judas had to change identities to avoid trouble with the authorities or vampire hunters. Made complete sense to me. He could have been a variety of personalities when dealing with hundreds of years of existence and also being bloodthirsty for all that time.

[–] O-Face 8 years ago

Judas being a vampire actually goes way back.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]