Subject: Dracula clichés
Author:
Posted on: 2014-11-08 02:43:00 UTC

So, I was getting ready to make the wiki page for the mini-children of the night, and wanted to do my usual "Canon Origin" section about the relation the minis had to canon. So I pretty much spent all of today bingeing on Wikipedia articles about Dracula and its many, many adaptations. (Dracula has appeared in 217 films, though they aren't all serious adaptations of the novel. That really is a huge number, considering the novel was only published in 1897. That's only 117 years, and movies weren't even a thing for all that time. According to Wikipedia, the only character to beat that number is Sherlock Holmes, who has appeared in film an also-impressive 223 times.) I was looking for uses of Dracula's abilities to shift his shape into a wolf, or to communicate with actual wolves, which he does on multiple occasions during Dracula and "Dracula's Guest," a short story that takes place before the novel.

And I discovered that this ability is almost universally ignored among adaptations. The 1931 Bela Lugosi film has the Count give messages to Renfield through wolf howls, which shows at least one of these abilities, but it happens offscreen. The 1992 Gary Oldman film has Dracula talk to a wolf at one point, but he also turns into a freaky humanoid wolfman thing for one creepy-as-hell scene, so that movie didn't get it right either.

There are only two instances (that I could find) that get this right. One is the 2012 film Dracula 3D, which, from all the YouTube clips I've watched today, seems to be the most accurate adaptation of the novel (although there is some priest dude who's not supposed to be there . . . #canon purist). The other, and I can't believe I have to admit this, is Grandpa Sam Dracula from The Munsters. While obviously not canon to the Stokerverse, Grandpa's official backstory on The Munsters is that he is the original count, having found a way to survive without feeding on humans and turned over a new leaf. And yes, he does turn into a wolf.

Why the failure to pick up on one of Count Dracula's most awesome abilities? Partly to blame must be the much more popular association between vampires and bats. Bats may seem to be the better companion, since they can fly, and one genus feeds on blood. A genus of tiny, tropical bats that would probably freeze to death in a Transylvanian summer, let alone winter. While wolves are intelligent predators that work together to capture living prey and then kill it—yeah, no, wolves are totally a better match to vampires than bats.

Oky, well wolves are, of course, large and potentially dangerous animals. It is reasonable for studios back in the day not to want them on set. That doesn't excuse more recent productions to not include wolf transformations through CGI affects. And what about non-live adaptations? Even radio plays, comic books, and animated series that feature Count Dracula don't let him be ♪hungry like the wolf♪! There's just no excuse for this totally awesome and totally canon ability to have fallen by the wayside for so long. I just can't understand it! I mean, The Munsters got it right. The Munsters! Gan damn.

Well, sorry for ranting all over the Board. Just wanted to clear that off my brain.

—doctorlit, who saw way too many partly undressed humans today. Seriously, filmmakers. Vampire movies have way too much nudity, and not enough wolves. Fix this.

Reply Return to messages