My guess is...

Subject: My guess is...
Author: Neshomeh
Posted on: 2014-11-08 04:15:00 UTC

Filmmakers probably worry about confusing people about what kind of monster movie they're watching. You've got vampires on the one hand, werewolves on the other. If your vampires start turning into wolves, then what have you got? Plus, there's the "vampires vs. werewolves" thing, though I don't know when that got started.

Personal side-note: in my original fantasy setting, my idea for vampires is that functionally, they are wolves: humanoid, blood-eating, nocturnal pack hunters that go around picking off the sick and weak. MAI ORIGINUL IDEA PLZ DONT STEAL, etc.

~Neshomeh

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Dracula clichÃ©s by doctorlit on 2014-11-08 02:43:00 UTC Reply

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.

That's not the only thing that gets lost. by Huinesoron on 2014-11-08 05:43:00 UTC Reply

I actually read Dracula for the first time when writing that mission, and compiled a list of vampire abilities for reference. Let's see...

-Dracula has no shadow, as well as no reflection. The latter makes it in a lot; I'm willing to bet the former is ignored for filmmaking.

-How often does weather control make it in? Dracula calls down storms on several occasions, though never with the pinpoint accuracy Selene demonstrates.

-I guess film!Dracula may turn into mist on occasion, though I'm not certain - but how about shrinking down to a couple of inches high? The description of Lucy doing this is really weird, but she definitely retains her human form while doing so. She just... shrinks.

And then there's the weaknesses. Would I be off in suspecting that Abraham Van Helsing's fanatical obsession with the Host - including placing bits of it in every one of the forty-odd chests of soil they find - tends to be glossed over? How about the limits on when Dracula can use his powers? They are:

On home soil
On unhallowed ground
At night
At dawn, dusk, or noon, where these last about half an hour either side of the actual event

The rest of the time he's just a normal human (and thus spends most of it sleeping). I suspect this is usually trimmed down to 'night'.

Oh, and the absolute best thing which I really doubt makes it in: if you nail a branch of wild rose to a vampire's coffin, they can't get in or out of it. It's quite charming, really. ^-^

hS

You mean, I beat hS to reading a British classic? by doctorlit on 2014-11-08 13:38:00 UTC Reply

~~Even if I had to read it for a high school class.~~

Yeah, the "no shadow" thing would require a lot of tedious, costly editing for a detail most audience members wouldn't notice throughout most of the movie. It also would have been flat-out impossible for the earlier movie adaptations. (Nosferatu, which was actually a bootleg Dracula ripoff that got its creators sued by Stoker's estate, made intentional use of the Count's shadow, which may have been a workaround to turn the inability to include that canon detail into an advantage.)

I haven't actually read "Dracula's Guest," but based on Wikipedia's summary, it does sound like Count Dracula gets a direct shot with a lightning bolt against another vampire. (Said vampire also summons a snowstorm before being hit; maybe different vampires get different types of weather ~~magic~~?)

I don't even remember Lucy shrinking. I'll have to look for that scene in the novel once the sun comes up.

As to the restrictions . . . Huh. Does that mean he can use powers on hallowed ground, provided that ground is earth from his home country? What if a holy figure blessed the ground he was standing on from a distance, without Dracula noticing? Would he suddenly get de-powered and not understand why?

And why do his powers come back at noon? That's the moment of least shadow (typically), so it seems like he should be at his weakest. Does he spin around in a circle, and be like, "Well, I can't see the sun. Therefore, it must not be up right now. PAWERS OF DARKESS TEIM!"

I'm sure there's some legendary origin for rose to have power over vampires, though I can't really imagine the connection. If a vampire was in the process of getting in or out of their coffin, and someone hammered some rose in really suddenly, would they be stuck in the opening forever, half in and half out? And I guess no one should write Selene/Rose of Sharon slash (slash?) in the next badfic game.

. . .

Tee hee.

I'm a miserable failure. :( by Huinesoron on 2014-11-10 10:55:00 UTC Reply

Yeah, somehow it had slipped past me; dunno why. Anyway, quotes:

"He cannot go where he lists; he who is not of nature has yet to obey some of nature’s laws—why we know not. He may not enter anywhere at the first, unless there be some one of the household who bid him to come; though afterwards he can come as he please. His power ceases, as does that of all evil things, at the coming of the day. Only at certain times can he have limited freedom. If he be not at the place whither he is bound, he can only change himself at noon or at exact sunrise or sunset. These things are we told, and in this record of ours we have proof by inference. Thus, whereas he can do as he will within his limit, when he have his earth-home, his coffin-home, his hell-home, the place unhallowed, as we saw when he went to the grave of the suicide at Whitby; still at other time he can only change when the time come. It is said, too, that he can only pass running water at the slack or the flood of the tide. Then there are things which so afflict him that he has no power, as the garlic that we know of; and as for things sacred, as this symbol, my crucifix, that was amongst us even now when we resolve, to them he is nothing, but in their presence he take his place far off and silent with respect. There are others, too, which I shall tell you of, lest in our seeking we may need them. The branch of wild rose on his coffin keep him that he move not from it; a sacred bullet fired into the coffin kill him so that he be true dead; and as for the stake through him, we know already of its peace; or the cut-off head that giveth rest. We have seen it with our eyes."

This is part of AVH's ridiculously long speech on Dracula's powers and weaknesses. The 'unhallowed' apparently means more 'unholy' than simply 'not hallowed' (which would be almost everywhere). I love the idea that vampires aren't hurt by sacred symbols - they simply go and wait somewhere else out of respect.

But yeah, AVH doesn't have a clue why Dracula's powers are limited by time of day. I reckon your 'spin in a circle' theory has a lot of weight to it.

We could hear the click of the closing lantern as Van Helsing held it down; coming close to the tomb, he began to remove from the chinks some of the sacred emblem which he had placed there. We all looked on in horrified amazement as we saw, when he stood back, the woman, with a corporeal body as real at that moment as our own, pass in through the interstice where scarce a knife-blade could have gone. We all felt a glad sense of relief when we saw the Professor calmly restoring the strings of putty to the edges of the door.

Shrinking Lucy! I really have no idea what Stoker wanted us to see here, but it's clear that she's still in human form, not a mist or anything. My only deduction is that she shrinks down to doll sized.

And a couple of scenes later AVH encourages Arthur to necrophilia. Literature!

hS

After this thread, I just had to check the book out. by Iximaz on 2014-11-14 19:47:00 UTC Reply

And I was not disappointed. In fact, I enjoyed it immensely. I wish we were reading this in English instead of Animal Farm for the third time. Oh, well...

And yeah, Lucy was shrinking:

"He become so small- we ourselves saw Miss Lucy, ere she was at peace, slip through a hairbreadth space at the tomb door."

I'd say that means shrinking. It wasn't very clear in the graveyard, though.

But the 'spin in a circle' idea is all I can think of as to why noon is one of the times he can shapeshift... But "noon, exact sunrise or sunset" seems like it could be potentially problematic. If he doesn't shift at that exact time, is he stuck until he can get back to his home area?

As for the holy symbols and Dracula "in their presence he take his place far off and silent with respect." Well, why then, does he require in hallowed ground? And if he retreats out of respect to holy symbols of Christianity, shouldn't he do the same for other religions? Besides, Dracula makes quite a fuss whenever he's near/touching a holy symbol.

"When the Count saw my face, his eyes blazed with a sort of demonic fury, and he suddenly made a grab at my throat. I drew away and his hand touched the string of beads which held the crucifix. It made an instant change in him, for the fury passed so quickly that I could hardly believe it was ever there."

Insta-mood swing!

Why then is the sacred bullet so effective? You'd think a regular bullet would work just as well. When Quincy shot at bat!Dracula, Dracula scampered pretty quickly, unless he's more vulnerable while shapeshifted?

I was squicked out by Arthur kissing vamp!Lucy after she died, too, but for a different reason; after he drove the steak through her, we got this lovely bit of description:

"The body shook and quivered and twisted in wild contortions; the sharp white teeth champed together till the lips were cut, and the mouth was smeared with a crimson foam."

Ew.

Speaking of Lucy, she was laid to rest in hallowed ground, but she didn't seem any the worse for it.

My guess is... by Neshomeh on 2014-11-08 04:15:00 UTC Reply

Filmmakers probably worry about confusing people about what kind of monster movie they're watching. You've got vampires on the one hand, werewolves on the other. If your vampires start turning into wolves, then what have you got? Plus, there's the "vampires vs. werewolves" thing, though I don't know when that got started.

Personal side-note: in my original fantasy setting, my idea for vampires is that functionally, they are wolves: humanoid, blood-eating, nocturnal pack hunters that go around picking off the sick and weak. MAI ORIGINUL IDEA PLZ DONT STEAL, etc.

~Neshomeh

Yeah, we seem to be stuck with wolves vs. vamps now. by doctorlit on 2014-11-08 13:16:00 UTC Reply

Thanks a lot, Underworld. (I'm not sure if that's really where it started, but I think it was the first high-profile series to employ it.)

I guess the movie would have to really sell the theme of shapeshifting to make sure the audience understood the vampire could do a whole bunch of different forms. Still, wolves are cool. You'd think that alone would warrant their inclusion in a Hollywood money grab.