|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#31
03-30-2006, 06:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Okay, I'll point out the obvious: Dracula, in the novel, is a count, making him an aristocrat from his very inception. This is not a later addition. harker describes him as "courtly" and "courteous."
And Castle Dracula is not a ruin. Harker refers to the "extraordinary evidence of wealth," particularly the gold table service of "immense value." Also: "The curtains and upholstery of the chairs and sofas and the hangins of my bed are of the costlierst and most beautiful fabrics, and must have been of fabulous value when they wer made, for they are centuries old, though in excellent order." Max Shreck in the over-rated NOSFERATU --with his bald head and rat teeth -- really has little to do with the author's conception. Both Lugosi and Lee, in different ways, come much closer. Of course, there is one big difference between screen Draculas and the book, and this comes from the Hamilton Deane play in the 1920s. In the book, Dracula is a shadowy character who is mostly off-screen. In the play he is transformed into a character who moves unobtrusively in upper-crust society; hence, the tie and tuxedo image that persists to this day. 
|
|
#32
03-31-2006, 04:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hollywoodgothiq, you need to post more often. This is a great thread.
__________________
"There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
#33
03-31-2006, 09:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
fair point about the book. in all fairness its been a few years since i last read it. i think i may have been corrupted by some of the films.
but come on now,lugosi better than shreck???? don't get me wrong, i love dracula 1931,it was the start of an era (albeit before my time,ahem). but lugosi was nearly as wooden as his coffin. the set was superb,probably the best there has ever been,but the acting did have its drawbacks, although dwight frye is excellent. but shreck get's everything right.the scene where he is stalking down the corridor of his castle,the classic moment of his shadow creeping up the stairs. and the way he rises from his coffin has never been bettered. either way,they are both classics and i'm going to crack open a few beers and watch them back to back. cheers!!
|
|
#34
03-31-2006, 10:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I didn't know the debate was about which was better; I thought it was about which was closer to the book.
Just to cite one more example, Jonathan Harker tells us that Dracula speaks excellent English, but with a strange intonation -- a perfect description of Lugosi's line readings.
|
|
#35
03-31-2006, 12:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
when it really comes down to it, nothing has been that faithful to stokers novel,sadly.
without meaning to jump forwards 70 years, but gary oldman's version is the closest i've seen, just a shame about all that mushy nonscense with winona ryder. at least we never had to endure that with lugosi!!
|
|
#36
03-31-2006, 12:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
this movie is sooo bad and funny! the actor guy that plays dracla is hilarios!
__________________
is that you mom?
|
|
#37
03-31-2006, 12:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
do you mean gary oldman and co?
ryder is dreadful, innit! and not hopkins finest hour. best of all is reeves. what an accent!!!
|
|
#38
03-31-2006, 12:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
maybe i dunno who waz in it it was blak and white and really chessy and stupid and funny
__________________
is that you mom?
|
|
#39
03-31-2006, 01:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Where to start...
Hell with it, Im not even going to reply to this moron. I guess even retars are entitled to there own opinions...
__________________
"There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
#40
03-31-2006, 01:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
ur really mean to me return:(
__________________
is that you mom?
|
 |
|
|
