From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Review of FFC'c _Dracula_ (small spoilers)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:34:58 GMT

      Alright now.  Everyone has to make something clear from now on.
When you say it is not in the book, which book do you mean?
Do you mean *Dracula* as written by Bram Stoker?
Or do you mean *Bram Stoker's Dracula* as written by the screenwriters?
And when you say it doesn't follow the book, exactly what do you mean?
Who gives a rat's ass whether Mina Harker was an integral part of the
original book written by Stoker?  She is an integral part of FFC's movie,
and without her, we could not have seen a love story where we pity/cheer
the vampire at the end.  We would have seen a horror film where we cheered on
the good guys as they hunted and destroyed the evil vampire.  I for one like
the movie.  If I wanted anything near faithful to Dracula as written by
Stoker, I would just rent Christopher Lee's or that other one.  There, the 
vampire was a fiend, and we liked his dying at the end (or at least that was
the aim of the writers...they don't tend to cheer the villain until 1989
in Hollywood.)
      Sorry this is rambling, but too many people are saying they didn't like
the movie for this reason or that, saying the book was better, not identifying
which book, and then giving no relevant reason for us to agree with them.  I 
never judge a movie by the book.  If one did that, all of Steven King's movies
would suck.  After all, the mind can build far more suspense than a movie can
anyday.  When we get images in our head that contradict the scene we see 
playing on the screen, we cannot say our images are wrong.  Ask a 
psychologist--it is cognitive dissonance or something like that.  So we, as
vampire fans, Anne Rice fans, Stoker fans, etc, have images that we expected to
see on the screen.  If FFC didn't capture those images exactly, then we would
be somewhat disappointed.
      Now for the spoiler.

      The shadow was not Dracula's shadow as cast by the spectrum, it was the
shadow of his soul.  He hated Harker, and wanted him dead, but he would not
act upon this hatred/hunger.  So he merely committed the acts against Harker
in his soul.
      As far as Dracula becoming a werewolf, I see no problem with it.  He can
become a man, and he can become a wolf.  Why not something in between?  In
European folklore, a werewolf, when finally killed, would rise as a vampire
unless he was decapitated.  Besides, who are we to tell FFC what he can and
cannot do with his tribute to Stoker, honoring of Winona Ryder, and all round
attempt to make money with pop culture?  Don't criticize because things are
different.  Fair comments of criticism should only reflect the generally bad
nature of many of the effects...i.e. the blood looked far to red to be real.

        That is my opinion, and as such must be accepted by all, for although
I am not God, He consults with me on many occassions.  Remember the flamingo
and his backwards kneecaps?  My idea...ask any priest!
                                                        Glenn

                                                        @-`--,---