7 Things About Dracula People Keep Getting Wrong

You can't go five seconds whenever Frankenstein is brought up to conversation without people complaining how Frankenstein monster is always named after its creator. Indeed, this isn't too far from the truth, but its ironic when you think Dracula - another classic monster from literature that had a much greater influence in popular culture than Frankenstein - gets a lot of things misunderstood by the general public and no one corrects them. It makes you wonder if the people who claimed reading Frankenstein has also read the original Dracula novel as well, because when you get down to it, the Dracula mythos get a lot of things wrong from its source material. This list below doesn't begin to cover everything, but its the major things people keep mistaking over...

7. Dracula Could Walk Under Sunlight

Its rule of thumb in vampire fiction that they burn into direct contact with the sun. Its funny when you realize that the work that popularized the genre in the first place never used this trope. In the novels, Dracula suffered no actual damage and could walk during daytime. However, it was noted he was much more vulnerable under the sun and could not use his powers either, so he preferred nighttime. Even further, the typical vampire legends and the books that preceded Dracula (like Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla) were never said to be hurt by sunlight either.

The death by sunlight was first used in Friederich W. Murnau's Nosferatu, which was supposedly a adaptation of the book, Stoker's widow, who owned the copyright, refused permission. So Murnau and his team said "fuck it" changed the characters' name, simplified the plot, and tried to pass Nosferatu off as an original story. At the end, instead of having the vampire hunters slaying him like in the novel, Murnau couldn't find a proper way to kill Dracula (or Orlok as he is called in the movie), so he pulled one out of his ass by having the heroine tricking the vampire into drinking her blood, distracting him long enough for the sun to rise and destroy him.

6. Dracula's Crazy Henchman was Useless

In some vampire stories, they keep a human thrall to guard them while their masters sleep during daylight and do their bidding with the promise of being granted eternal life. This was based on Reinfield, a insane individual under Dracula's control that was seemingly convinced that eating live bugs, birds and spiders can extend his lifeforce. More often than not, he is depicted as a state agent that was sent to Transylvania before the story' protagonist Jonathan Harker and returned batsh*t insane and completely devoted to his master.

While the madness part is still true, most of these accounts are incorrect. Reinfield was a lunatic asylum inmate that already suffered a compulsion to consume live animals and while was convinced to worship Dracula, he spent all his time locked up in his cell doing absolutely nothing. The bug-eating henchman was based on his incarnation in the Bela Lugosi's movie which in is the blueprint which every Dracula movie is based on. He was not even slavishly loyal in the novel either; once the heroine treats him with kindness and concern, he warns her that the Count is coming for her and when he confronts Reinfield over his betrayal, he murders the madman in his cell (in retrospective, it was very common for Reinfield or the human thrall to be murdered by Dracula's own hands in many adaptations for failing him).

5. Van Helsing Was No Action Hero

The first things that sprout to mind when you hear the words Van Helsing is "Hugh Jackman" or "old badass". It is very common to depict the German Professor Abraham Van Helsing as a experienced, highly trained kickass vampire hunter that serves as Dracula's arch-nemesis and has a history with him and score to settle for reason or another.

While in the books, Van Helsing do help destroy the vampire, he was not exactly a badass Victorian-period Arnold Schwazeneger. Just a very talented scientist having MD, DPh, D. Lit, Etc, Etc in his title that never even faced a vampire beforehand. He doesn't even know they are dealing with vampires once he is summoned to treat one of Dracula's victims, and only through immense research during the events of the story after her death, he discovers how to fight back against the vampires. Its not even him that deals the final blow to Count Dracula, but rather Jonathan Harker and his friend Quincey Morris.

4. The Brides Were Never Called Such Thing

Everybody knows of Dracula's brides, three beautiful and seductive vampires who resides in his castle and serve as his company. They are alluring, but deadly creatures that attempt to seduce the heroes into their doom and sway the heroine into their side once she is afflicted with vampirism. They serve as a grim reminder of what will happen to the heroines if Dracula isn't vanquished...

Its easily assumed by the crowd that they are Dracula's consorts, but in fact, their nature is not actually revealed in the detail, nor they are referred as such in the narrative. They are referred as sisters by the characters and that they were not loved by Dracula, but its said that he once loved them in the past. Its not made exactly clear by Bram Stoker and up to debate what they are.

Unlike popular depictions that have them with varying hair colors or shades (like one blonde, one brunette and one redhead like in Van Helsing), in the book there is one blonde, which is viewed as the leader, and ironically, enough the youngest among the three, and two brunettes, that have highly aquiline noses similar to the Count, implying that they are related in some way, either being his actual sisters or daughters and making it f*cktons creepier if they indeed are his brides.

3. Dracula was No Looker...

With a very, dark, mysterious fellow carrying a very aristocratic flair and being able to seduce women with ease should come to no surprise people would picture him as biggest playa imaginable. Having being portrayed by so many studs in several adaptations, it may come as surprise that Dracula was ugly as sin in the original novel!!! At the start of the book, he looks very old and is described as having with bushy mustache, "a cruel looking mouth" with blood red lips and sharp teeth coming out of them, a highly aquiline nose (as described above), pointy ears, a uni-brow and hairy palms. This freaks the protagonist Jonathan Harker a little as it gives a clue he might there is something inhuman about.

This is actually a very interesting aspect, because as he looks old in the beginning of the book, but rejuvenates over the course of the story, as he feeds on the blood of the women. The only adaptation I can remember deploying this plot device is 1993's Bram Stoker's Dracula, where he was played by Gary Oldman and he looks simply laughable in old person' make up with butt-cheeks hair. One of the things that movie gets somewhat right, unlike the following two things.

2. ...Neither He Was Sympathetic

One would assume he is tired of his undead existence and just wants to move out to England to enjoy the new world as the usual cliched vampire bullsh*t you heard a thousand times. Except not really... Dracula in the books had not redeeming qualities whatsoever, he preyed on young women with his attacks being reminiscent to rape (he outright rapes one of his victims in Bram Stoker's Dracula!), he specifically targets one of them to hurt the heroes, hands a baby over to his Brides to feast upon and when the mother comes knocking demanding to give her child back, he kills her. Its implied he was planning to take over England before his plans were foiled by the vampire hunters, and forced to retreat back to Transylvania. Its also assumed that in life he was a evil sorcerer and necromancer that dabbled in dark magic, having learned the secret of immortality by becoming a vampire upon his death.

And as if that wasn't enough, he was based on none other than Vlad III the Impaler Dracula, a notoriously cruel tyrant that was fond of having dining before a field of people being impaled in extremely gruesome ways. While Vlad is remembered as hero for having defending the land from Ottoman invaders and as brutal his acts might have been they were seemed as necessary at the time, these accounts still served as inspiration to make the fictional Count Dracula one unredeemable bastard. Also tied with the biggest thing that people keep getting wrong about Dracula...

1. There Was No Reincarnation Love

Its generally believed that Dracula targets one of the heroines (Mina Harker in particular) because he thinks she is his reincarnated wife from their previous life, that probably committed suicide when she learned false reports that he died while fighting the Ottomans just like in (once again) Bram Stoker's Dracula. Mina falls madly in love with him despite being engaged to Jonathan Harker as well as Dracula raping and killing her best friend Lucy, she wants to be with him for all eternity and begs him to turn her into a vampire, but he is initially reluctant (doesn't this sound familiar?)

Except that in the novels, there was never anything romantic even hinted between Dracula and Mina. In fact, he specifically attacks her to punish the vampire hunters for thrashing his resting place, threatening to kill her and her husband if she so much screams for help, feast on her blood and forces her to drink his, afflicting her with vampirism. In turn, she is repulsed by his physical appearance and is visibly disturbed for the attack she endured. She does however expresses some pity toward the Count, specially when he dies, but that is it. In fact, she was portrayed as a much stronger female character in the original novels than in most adaptations that came afterward, as she goes from a very determined, strong young woman that helps the heroes to hold it together and track Dracula down to a weeping, hysterical damsel in distress that is often in love with Dracula. *Sigh* its a shame to see characters wasted like that -__-

Well thank you guys for reading it, I hope you enjoyed it. If you read the Dracula novel, what do you think of it? Which Dracula adaptation is your favorite?

See ya next time =)

51 Comments
52 Comments
  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by TifaLockhart

Also, that Bach song isn't Dracula's theme.

Posted by Dragonborn_CT

Also, that Bach song isn't Dracula's theme.

What song are you referring?

Edited by mrdecepticonleader

Interesting list.

I wouldn't quite say it's people getting things wrong. More so just Dracula getting interpreted differently.

Posted by gumflabica

To be honest, I've never really talked to people about Dracula, but those were all things that Made me like the movies less and less..... I enjoyed the novel, but when they added in some pretty pictures and made it a graphic novel, I pooped myself.

Edited by TifaLockhart

I forget the name but it's featured in the angry video game nerd's dark castle review.

Posted by Deathstroke19

Very nicely done. I never read the novel unfortunately so... Yeah. My fav adaption is... Idk i will have to think about it.

Posted by RogueShadow

@dragonborn_ct: I feel so proud that I knew all of these things! Hollywood likes to spice things up, just look at Sherlock Holmes throughout the years. I take it you've been watching Dracula from the pictures, what do you think?

Posted by Marionettegeist

Love the novel. I haven't really watched any of the adaptions (except for one that I didn't like. I don't remember which one though.)

Posted by Dabee

I've never really thought it was possible to get something "wrong" about a fictional character. If Dracula were a real person, it would certainly be possible to get something wrong. He would have had one true history that would be completely indisputable. Since he is a fictional character, however, there can be different interpretations. You can say people separate their interpretations from the original Dracula, but to say it's "wrong" has always seemed off to me.

Online
Posted by Marionettegeist

@dabee said:

I've never really thought it was possible to get something "wrong" about a fictional character. If Dracula were a real person, it would certainly be possible to get something wrong. He would have had one true history that would be completely indisputable. Since he is a fictional character, however, there can be different interpretations. You can say people separate their interpretations from the original Dracula, but to say it's "wrong" has always seemed off to me.

Well if someones interpretation of a character changes the original too drastically, it will no longer resemble the original character and will essentially be a new one with the same name. That's the main way to get a character "wrong" to me.

Edited by RogueShadow

Very nicely done. I never read the novel unfortunately so... Yeah. My fav adaption is... Idk i will have to think about it.

Say Gary Oldman...

Edited by Dragonborn_CT

@tifalockhart: Oh I know which one you are talking about.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Interesting list.

I wouldn't quite say it's people getting things wrong. More so just Dracula getting interpreted differently.

Thanks.

Like what Orson Wells said "Dracula would make a marvelous movie. In fact, nobody has ever made it... all the movies are based on the play."

@deathstroke19 said:

Very nicely done. I never read the novel unfortunately so... Yeah. My fav adaption is... Idk i will have to think about it.

Its alright. Take your time and if you don't feel like answering I understand either way :p

@gumflabica said:

To be honest, I've never really talked to people about Dracula, but those were all things that Made me like the movies less and less..... I enjoyed the novel, but when they added in some pretty pictures and made it a graphic novel, I pooped myself.

Hehe I wish I could read a legit graphic novel to Dracula, the ones I've seen deviate or compress the plot to some ridiculous manner.

@dabee said:

I've never really thought it was possible to get something "wrong" about a fictional character. If Dracula were a real person, it would certainly be possible to get something wrong. He would have had one true history that would be completely indisputable. Since he is a fictional character, however, there can be different interpretations. You can say people separate their interpretations from the original Dracula, but to say it's "wrong" has always seemed off to me.

If people so much take a different interpretation to Frankenstein monster of they dare to call him like his creator, they claim that is "wrong" because its not like the original novel. Now the same thing can be applied to Dracula by using this logic.

@dctv3363 said:

Love the novel. I haven't really watched any of the adaptions (except for one that I didn't like. I don't remember which one though.)

I can guess its either Bram Stoker's Dracula or Frank Langella's movie?

@rogueshadow said:

@dragonborn_ct: I feel so proud that I knew all of these things! Hollywood likes to spice things up, just look at Sherlock Holmes throughout the years. I take it you've been watching Dracula from the pictures, what do you think?

I've seen plenty of Dracula movies, and while some do come close to adapting the plot threads like Bram Stoker's Dracula, they deviate big time like the aspects I explained above in the blog. I do enjoy some movies for different reasons than being loyal to the source material.

Posted by SmashBrawler

Thanks, Cracked! ;D

Seriously though, this was a great read. I remember reading Dracula years ago and... yeah, I was pretty surprised at how much stuff that seems like common knowledge wasn't in the original novel. BTW, have you seen that new Dracula series? Is it any good? I've been thinking of watching it but, of course, I'm not entirely sure.

Posted by RogueShadow

@dragonborn_ct: I meant what do you think about the new show on NBC, I realise new that I should have specified since this thread is about Dracula... :P

Edited by Dragonborn_CT

Thanks, Cracked! ;D

Seriously though, this was a great read. I remember reading Dracula years ago and... yeah, I was pretty surprised at how much stuff that seems like common knowledge wasn't in the original novel. BTW, have you seen that new Dracula series? Is it any good? I've been thinking of watching it but, of course, I'm not entirely sure.

LOL I know it sounds similiar xD

Thanks, dude. I haven't seen it yet, but I heard very positive things about it despite some of the details turning away my interest, like Dracula posing as an American entrepreneur that just sounds like a bad idea to me :P I want to give a watch too. I heard Katie McGrath is in it and she is Lucy Westenra :D

Posted by Dragonborn_CT

@rogueshadow: lol I didn't notice it either :P You can see SmashBrawler's reply and I said

I haven't seen it yet, but I heard very positive things about it despite some of the details turning away my interest, like Dracula posing as an American entrepreneur that just sounds like a bad idea to me :P I want to give a watch too. I heard Katie McGrath is in it and she is Lucy Westenra :D

Posted by Samimista

How did I miss this? 0.0 I honestly didn't know most of these facts! =O Very interesting about 7, 4 and 1. I like the classic vampires that don't sparkle! =O

Edited by Wolfrazer

Pfft...the OG Dracula is just too much for people to handle!

Online
Posted by RogueShadow

@dragonborn_ct: Katie Mcgrath's insanely hot, Jonathan Rhys Meyers is in it too, who was bad ass as Henry VIII. I know what you mean about the American industrialist thing, fortunately I went into it with no knowledge of the premise [aside from y'know... it's Dracula] and so I didn't expect anything, was pleasantly surprised, somehow the whole American thing actually works, Jonathan Rhys Meyers is a superb actor though so it's no surprise. Renfield actually seems highly intelligent & cultured in this version, and there's bit of a bromance between the two, [none sexual] it's kind of cool, nothing spectacular though, not yet anyway.

Posted by PotatoOfDoom

o_o I feel dumb now.

(I still like wolver-- I mean, Van Helsing.)

Edited by NorrinBoltagonPrime21

But they still sparkle, right? Right!?

Posted by Fallschirmjager

Alucard is still the best incarnation of a vampire.

Posted by Dragonborn_CT

How did I miss this? 0.0 I honestly didn't know most of these facts! =O Very interesting about 7, 4 and 1. I like the classic vampires that don't sparkle! =O

Thanks, my friend :D Its awesome when you think about it! They should address it more often.

o_o I feel dumb now.

(I still like wolver-- I mean, Van Helsing.)

Its okay, my friend :P

@dragonborn_ct: Katie Mcgrath's insanely hot, Jonathan Rhys Meyers is in it too, who was bad ass as Henry VIII. I know what you mean about the American industrialist thing, fortunately I went into it with no knowledge of the premise [aside from y'know... it's Dracula] and so I didn't expect anything, was pleasantly surprised, somehow the whole American thing actually works, Jonathan Rhys Meyers is a superb actor though so it's no surprise. Renfield actually seems highly intelligent & cultured in this version, and there's bit of a bromance between the two, [none sexual] it's kind of cool, nothing spectacular though, not yet anyway.

Yeah, I can give it a shot for these reasons. Specially Katie McGrath ;)

But they still sparkle, right? Right!?

I am afraid to inform you... They don't :P

Posted by Dragonborn_CT

Alucard is still the best incarnation of a vampire.

QTF!!!!!

Posted by Samimista

@dragonborn_ct: Your welcome! It's amazing how much you know about vampires! 0.0 Great blog like always Caio! =D

Posted by The Stegman

Lestat>Dracula in my opinion...then again, I may or may not be current enthralled in Rice's novels as we speak.

Posted by gumflabica
Edited by mrdecepticonleader

@dragonborn_ct: Ha yeah. I mean is it so hard to make a movie that is accurate to the book or at least near.

I have not seen the new Dracula series. Have you?

Posted by NorrinBoltagonPrime21

@dragonborn_ct:

................Everything I know is a lie............

Posted by Dragonborn_CT

@norrinboltagonprime21: That must truly suck (ba dum tss) :P

@mrdecepticonleader:

Yeah, but that doesn't necessarily is a bad thing. While the some of the things I listed above are incorrect in regards to the source material, doesn't make it bad.

In regards to the TV show, I heard mostly positives about it and while searching for gifs to post in this blog, it did got me interested. Besides it has Katie McGrath as Lucy, I would watch it for her :P

Lestat>Dracula in my opinion...then again, I may or may not be current enthralled in Rice's novels as we speak.

Sure thing, mate. I never got into Vampire Chronicles novels and I just found both movie adaptations okay... Queen of the Damned gets way too much hate than it deserves in my opinion.

Edited by Jonny_Anonymous
Posted by RoyceLunar

Very informative. :)

Posted by Dragonborn_CT
Posted by Immortal777

This is definitely the best portrayal of Dracula EVER.

Online
Posted by Pokeysteve

Wow. Clean up the grammar a bit and put this gem on the main page. It sounds so cheesy but I learned a lot from this and kind of want to read the original novel. I would have to disagree about number one though. I had ZERO idea that sunlight didn't actually kill him. Really great job here. Just a pleasure to read.

As far as my favorite Dracula goes...

Posted by ARMIV2

Holey smokes, this one really got me. The only thing that I knew about beforehand was Vlad the Impaler being Dracula's inspiration. And here I thought the sunlight not straight up killing vampires came from Legacy of Kain.

Posted by mrdecepticonleader

@dragonborn_ct: Oh no I know. It would just be nice to see it as all. As I said different interpretation's and all.

Ha ha I see.

Posted by WarBlade539

@dragonborn_ct:

Te ipsum, Caio. Hic incredibilis effercio est valde infigo. Quam terribilis super omnes tendere vellem scribere, mihi quidem non pigrum vobis.

Grando in omni Dragonborn.

Posted by Jayso4201

Good read, thank you.

Posted by Dragonborn_CT

@jayso4201: You are welcome ;)

@pokeysteve: Thanks, dude I apologize for some grammar errors, I am Brazilian and English is not my mother language. I am glad you thoroughly enjoy it.

This is definitely the best portrayal of Dracula EVER.

So you have seen the series? What do you think?

@dragonborn_ct:

Te ipsum, Caio. Hic incredibilis effercio est valde infigo. Quam terribilis super omnes tendere vellem scribere, mihi quidem non pigrum vobis.

Grando in omni Dragonborn.

Dovahkiin kos fin saviik do muz! Dovahkiin, Dovahkiin, naal ok zin los vahriin, Wah dein vokul mahfaeraak ahst vaal! Ahrk fin norok paal graan fod nust hon zindro zaan Dovahkiin, fah hin kogaan mu draaAAAAAAAAL!

Posted by Immortal777

@dragonborn_ct: So far I've only seen the first episode and it's just something the watch when I'm bored. I haven't even tried to watch the other episodes because in the first episode I felt like Dracula was way to nice and not cruel enough. I don't care if Dracula is in love with a woman TV shows need multiple things for the story but that doesn't mean he has to be a nice individual that's why Barnabas Collins is my all time favorite Vampire because he loved women but would kill them if they got in the way of his own survival. I have to watch more episodes maybe it gets better idk. How do you feel about the show?

Online
Posted by consolemaster001
Posted by nerdork

He was also really into ski-ball and knitting...little known fact.

Posted by Dragonborn_CT

@immortal777: I haven't watched it at the moment, but I want to give it a shot so badly. I am going to definitily looks with other eyes, instead of expecting a faithful adaptation. I knew it wouldn't be the second I saw in the trailer, Reinfield as African-American and not bug-eating psycho, and at the end I thought "What is missing is that Mina is in fact his reincarnated love" and that is exactly what happened next -_- This perspective is interesting, because it seems like this Dracula is more closer to Barnabas Collins in Dark Shadows than he usually is in the novels or movies

@consolemaster001:What f-bombs, mate? They are already censored :P

Edited by Immortal777

@dragonborn_ct: The show isn't bad or anything I'm just not going to rush to watch it every week. So far the fight scene that I saw was promising showing that Dracula can fight and the display of physical dominance was nice. I like that Dracula has no problem killing people because they piss him off and that he's nothing like Angel from Buffy the vampire slayer. You might really like the show it reminds me a little of Assassin Creed because of Dracula objective.

I wish Barnabas Collins would return he was such a bada$$ he was willing to kill his family, friends, servants and other loved ones to protect himself. Like when he tried to kill a kid from his family but was foiled so instead he decided to drive the child insane what vampires nowadays do things like that all they do now is cry themselves to sleep. I'll be content with getting my vampire fix from the Dark Shadows comics and seeing how this Dracula show does.

Online
Posted by Dragonborn_CT

@immortal777: lol I know what you are saying... I heard something about he searching for revenge against a Templar-like organization called Order of the Dragon I believe.

I am not very familiar with Dark Shadows, I've seen only that Tim Burton movie, but I just found mediocre :P I do know some fans outright despise it so I get what you are saying. I trust you may probably not have a positive opinion in that movie either...

Posted by Immortal777

@dragonborn_ct: It was fun to watch Barnabas played to be more funny but other than that the original series is leaps and bounds better. If you have Netflix (idk if it's in Brazil I've only been there once) you should watch the original 4 collections of Dark Shadows it puts all the current vampire crap to shame. If Dark Shadows could have been made now that there is less censorship in the US it would have been violent as heck. If you ever get he chance to check out the series you should it had 1,225 episodes I still haven't seen all of them lol I think I watched maybe 500 or 600 episode's.

Online
Posted by kuonphobos

I was all set to follow the new NBC show until I saw the trailer and the reincarnation pap.

The costumes look a little off to me as well. How far into the 1900s is the show set?

I always say that I prefer vampires to be monsterous. That being said I really don't have a favorite film/television portrayal of Dracula. I prefer the creatures in the film adaptation of Steve Niles' 30 Days of Night although the film itself was somewhat lacking.

Posted by evilvegeta74

I had to post this!!!

Posted by MaccyD

Pfft, everyone knows Castlevania is the source material for Dracula.

  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2