Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DonQOnIce t1_iuhv4y7 wrote

Reply to comment by fat_nuts_big_buttz in Nosferatu at 100: a silent horror masterwork that continues to chill by Stonewalled89

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