Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fat_nuts_big_buttz t1_iuhuabp wrote

Is nosferatu a different interpretation of Dracula, or are they completely different source materials?

61

LupinThe8th t1_iuhx4ro wrote

It's Dracula with the serial numbers filed off. They changed character names to avoid getting sued by the Stoker estate, got sued anyway, lost, and every copy was ordered destroyed.

Luckily, they missed a few, so we can watch the movie today.

199

fat_nuts_big_buttz t1_iuhxccl wrote

I saw it a year or so ago. Great sets and visuals. I guess nosferatu was more than just "that guy from the one spongebob episode"

55

LloydtheLlama47 t1_iuir7cu wrote

Looking back as an adult, why the hell was that in Spongebob? Lol, it obviously wasn’t for the kids to guess and even adults that’s a hit or miss reference. A reference that doesn’t really even have a joke tied to it, Nosferatu just shows up.

24

HailToTheThief225 t1_iuitr2o wrote

I thought it was hilarious as a kid even not knowing who Nosferatu was. I don't think the joke would've hit the same if it were anyone else.

23

DonQOnIce t1_iuhv4y7 wrote

It’s an interpretation. As I recall, they tried to get the rights to Dracula and Stoker’s widow refused.

44

saanity t1_iui33eg wrote

That's crazy that this movie is so old, Bram Stoker's wife refused film rights.

40

DonQOnIce t1_iui3lcf wrote

It was made only 25 years after Dracula was published. So it’s like us adapting a book written in the late 1990s. It kind of feels like Dracula the novel is way older than film but in reality it was published right around the start of film.

56

rivers2mathews t1_iui9x14 wrote

> It was made only 25 years after Dracula was published. So it’s like us adapting a book written in the late 1990s.

I don’t need this kind of attack on a Monday morning.

40

well-lighted t1_iujen8b wrote

Honestly, just seeing “the 1990s” instead of just “the ‘90s” is triggering to me at this point.

I had a 7th grade student recently write “the 1900s” to refer to the 20th Century (specifically, the 60s/70s) and I just about died on the spot.

1

Ok-Classic-7302 t1_iui2yt5 wrote

Interpretation is a word for sure. Someone above you said it best- "it's Dracula with the serial.# filed off"

12

DonQOnIce t1_iui3bgo wrote

True, I guess it’s more accurate to say that it looks like an interpretation to us now because the Bella Lugosi movie from the 30s became what the culture sees when it thinks of Dracula. It is more directly an adaptation without permission.

7

MoobyTheGoldenSock t1_iuiy48m wrote

Unlicensed adaptation would probably be the best description.

They tried to change just enough to call it an original work, including switching all the character names and changing the ending (stake in the heart was replaced by sunlight.)

5

KindlyOlPornographer t1_iuj972k wrote

Thats not how he dies in the book.

They decapitate him and stab him in the heart at the same time, with regular knives.

3

Skyldt t1_iujr9a1 wrote

like people have been saying, they changed a bunch of stuff to avoid being sued by the Stoker family. One of the biggest things they changed, that's still in action today, is the idea that vampires die in sunlight. in Stokers DRACULA, vampires become weaker in daylight, but don't die.

interesting, the family still sued NOSFERATU, won, and all copies were ordered destroyed. a few survived (obviously), and now it's widely seen as a masterpiece.

1

ifinallyreallyreddit t1_iujzjq2 wrote

It's an adaptation, but different in certain respects. Orlok's appearance is completely different from Dracula's.

1