Jump to content

Talk:Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:c7f:6e64:1c00:cde5:54e1:64c9:f6a7 (talk) at 10:38, 30 June 2020 (→Title and lede). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Some Trivia

following is a bit of trivia that may be of general interest; however since these are my own experiences/observations, they aren't appropriate to add to the article (WP:NOR)

i worked on the post production audio for BSD - just an audio tech, not a mixer! the post was done at Francis Copolla's vineyard - he had cobbled together a small soundstage, mixroom, and equipment (recording/playback) room, apparently accumulating things as needed over the years. the whole facility was on the second floor of a barn that had been converted for this purpose - the lower floor was used as a cellar for many (if not all) of the barrels of wine aging on the premises. The barn is/was very old - probably in the hundred years old range. As such, it had a belfry at the top.

you may have guessed the nature of the trivia - during this mix of a vampire movie, there were bats in the belfry, and when it rained, the entire facility would be permeated with the odor of bat guano. it lent a weird, almost surreal quality to the experience working there. Anastrophe 23:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statement

Despite these alterations, the movie is considered by many as one of the most faithful cinematic adaption of the story. [citation needed]

This statement has been waiting to be sourced since some time in April. I think it's time to move it here. --85.187.44.131 22:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary

I have taken it upon myself to greatly expand and edit the plot summary of this article. I did so immediately after watching Bram Stoker's Dracula on DVD. My purpose was to give a much more accurate description of the story, including how actions flow together (why Dracula killed Lucy when he did, for example) and including interesting/unique details--such as Mina beginning to remember her past life and Dracula's many forms. I also corrected certain details. For example, the final weapon used against Dracula is a bowie knife, not a sword. Van Helsing uses a piece of Eucharist against Mina, not a cross. Lucy received transfusions from three men, not just Arthur. And so forth. Zahir13 16:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, the plot summary has taken on a life of its own, and now constitutes the majority of the article, going into exquisite detail that is unencyclopedic in tone. frankly, i think it should be gutted and begun again from scratch. if only i had the time...Anastrophe 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zahir, by this you inserted a lot of OR on your part. It is complete speculation that Dracula kills Lucy out of grief for Mina's departure. After all, her death and vampirism are the logical consequence of their earlier encounters and have nothing to do with Mina. That Mina actually has a past life is also speculation - Dracula certainly considers her a reincarnated Elisabeta but anything more is speculation! It is also completely irrelevant whether a bowie or a kukri knife is used. And so forth!
I removed such things but think the plot section might still be reduced further. BTW, Renfield currently does not appear at all. Str1977 (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would be interesting: What are the main differences between the original novel by Bram Stoker and the film? 94.237.93.54 (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there's sourced explanations as to why the changes were made. Otherwise it's trivia at best and original research at worst, and inappropriate for inclusion either way. Doniago (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source would be the movie and the book. A change is a change... not an opinion. In what way are they different? If it can be known why they are different, that's more information but it isn't necessary. Gingermint (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carfax Abbey

It's been some time since i've read the novel, and seen the film - what was Draculas reason for buying the property in London? What were his plans? It says in the article that the Carfax Abbey was the inended plot. And the significance of it was...? -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula (song)

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to menion he iced earth song "dracula" here. In a interview, the bands leader mentioned this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.236.43 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? Gingermint (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Why is this article named Bram Stoker's Dracula instead of Dracula (1992 film)? All of the James Bond films were introduced as either Ian Fleming's name of film or Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in name of film, but their articles are simply at Name of Film. David Pro (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, compare Frankenstein (1994 film) as opposed to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. On the Collector's Edition DVD, Coppola said that he liked to put the author's name in front of the title of an adaptation, citing as an example Mario Puzo's The Godfather. But that is at The Godfather. This should probably be moved to Dracula (1992 film).--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The film is recognised by IMDB as "Dracula". It was officially released as such in a number of countries but Bram Stoker's Dracula is the official title in other countries. It would seem that the film is generallay referred to as "Dracula" on film related sites by film fans. Perhaps best changed - discussion to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.215.203 (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably be changed using the logic applied by User:Emperor001 at the Frankenstein (1994 film) page, where th "promotional title", including the writer's name, is saluted. This discussion would be firmly in support of the change - recognised by IMBD and released in several countries as "Dracula". In respect to the novel, better changed. Sidney West (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information best presented in this article as per agreement in discussion at Bram Stoker's Dracula. Sidney West (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've merged the history from there. Use the move function in the future or see WP:RM. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved back to Bram Stoker's Dracula as per reasoning given in #Page moved. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rating information

I'm removing the sentence "It was given an R rating for vampire violence, some violence, graphic violence (such as Blood and Gore), and nudity." from the introduction as it isn't really relevant to the article - if people want its classification they can go to the iMDB or any other classifications site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfyDead (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title again

The Internet Movie Database may call this movie Dracula, but the on-screen title is Bram Stoker's Dracula and the official title is Bram Stoker's Dracula on the Sony Pictures website. Doesn't that override the Internet Movie Database? The Internet Movie Database also refers to Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer as 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, but we don't call the Wikipedia article that. Bram Stoker's Dracula is not simply a promotional title. DT29 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was already reached. Bram Stoker's Dracula redirects to this article, and the alternate title is noted in the opening. The film is most frequently referred to simply as Dracula, which is the name of the novel it was adapted from. 88.109.25.35 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DT29's claims don't stand up - the film was officially released as Dracula in a number of territories. The reason IMDB uses that title is because of that fact, and simply because the film is most commonly known simply as Dracula in all territories, despite being released as both Dracula and Bram Stoker's Dracula. The latter may or may not have been a promotional title, but that's irrelevant - Wikipedia uses the best known name for subjects. It also happens to be the name of the book. Bram Stoker's Dracula redirects to this page, so there's absolutely no reason for a move. Mister Monday Night (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert notes, from reporting at the time of the release, that "The film is inspired by the original Bram Stoker novel, although the author's name is in the title for another reason (Another studio owns the rights to plain "Dracula")." Which would strongly imply that, at least in the US, the legal / official name is not Dracula. Review Here As I've been searching for information on this film I have had better luck using the long name then just Dracula, or Dracula (1992).71.36.66.101 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it was officially released as Dracula in a number of territories. OF COURSE "Bram Stoker's Dracula" will yield more internet results, since there's no confusion with every other instance of Dracula. Both titles are noted in the lede, and Bram Stoker's Dracula redirects here. It's safe to say that the film is best known to the general population simply as "Dracula", which is the story it was adapted from. 2.124.196.16 (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved back to Bram Stoker's Dracula as per reasoning given in #Page moved. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted scene?

On the back of Dracula movie cover (conventional release) pictured scenes and one of this scenes is not in movie. [1] It is in upper part.Is there some different version of the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.228.58 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video games

I removed the references for each platform the game was released on. It seemed pointless, as it is part of the video game article and this is the article about the movie - undo it if I was thinking wrong or missing the point. Also, I updated the video game article to reference all the platforms for which the game was released, according to MobyGames. Hope this helped. Good movie, good article btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMFS (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Welsh, James M. (2007). "Sucking Dracula: Mythic Biography into Fiction in Film, or Why Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula Is Not Really Bram Stoker's Dracula or Wallachia's Dracula". In Welsh, James M; Lev, Peter (eds.). The Literature/Film Reader: Issues of Adaptation. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810859491.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Is it really a horror film? Just because all other adaptations of Dracula have been horror films doesn't mean this is; while it certainly has horrific elements, so does Harry Potter, and I personally don't find that this film is making a consistent attempt to horrify. But at the same time, it doesn't really fall into any other genre...--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most reliable sources would call it a horror movie, but if there are significant sources classifying it in another manner then perhaps we should reclassify it. Doniago (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it now described as erotic horror? You can't say it's erotic because it has two sex scenes, that aren't evn explicit; most films would fit in that category then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.152.16 (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more erotic than horror, although both of those are pretty bad descriptions anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.113.215 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenbaum Review

Source doesn't work for me, you can switch it with this one:

http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=7153 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.229.224 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack layout

For me the track-listing sits underneath the infobox in a most un-appealing way. I suggest that the tracklisting template not be used here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Page moved

Official title in the Americas, UK and Australia; the film was not released as "Dracula" in any English-speaking country. Non-parenthetical identifiers are preferred, and the move also makes this film's article easier to distinguish from those on other Dracula movies. Non-controversial move. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page to Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film) because there are several things with that title, including an earlier Dracula movie starring Jack Palance. Columbia Pictures purchased the rights to the title in the early 1990's so people wouldn't find out about the Jack Plance version with a reincarnation romance and a version of Dracula that is Vlad the Impaler and semi-sympathetic. All things they are inspired by, and were passing off as being part of an all new take, true to the "spirit" of Stoker's writing. Razdower (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the move as it was undiscussed and at least 1 editor thought that there should be a full move discussion before there is any page moves under taken. If you wish to make a move then initiate a move discussion via WP:RM thanks. Keith D (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Bram Stoker's Dracula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN agenda by User:MarnetteD

I came upon a cite from the reliable entertainment outlet IGN, which says that "Oldman is considered by many to be the best Dracula ever and his portrayal is often considered one of the greatest film villains". I used this to support the following addition to the lede:

Oldman is viewed by many as the best Dracula in history, and his portrayal is often regarded as one of cinema's greatest villains.

User:MarnetteD reverted my edit, claiming that it was unsupported by the cite. As this was blatantly untrue I restored my work, and was met with another revert along with the juvenile insult, "plz post it on your facebook page". MarnetteD has been blocked from Wikipedia multiple times[2] and appears to have a problem with acclaim for Oldman.[3] All this points to a concerning WP:OWN agenda. Please weigh in. 185.51.229.78 (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make this personal. Comment on the edit, not the editor. And, seriously, you're dredging up diffs from years ago when he removed unsourced puffery? It's true that this was cited to a reliable source, but exceptional claims typically require better sourcing than usual. If other editors want more or better sourcing for such a strong claim, I think that's valid. Maybe if you offered to move this to the reception instead of the lead, and you found a more neutral phrasing, it would be more readily accepted. Or maybe you could point to another source that backs up this claim that Oldman's Dracula is "often regarded" as the best film villain. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to information supporting your change? This would certainly be preferable to a paragraph discussing a single user you're having difficulties with. Discuss content, not contributors. I'm happy to weigh in on the virtues of your material, but without a supporting citation am unable to do so. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is pointing out to the OP that there are other places on the net that they can express their appreciation of Oldman's performance so no it is not an insult. As to IGN these blog style sites are a dime a dozen. There is no indication who the author(s) is or are. There is also no indication who the "many" are who claim it is the best villain. Please note that it is just as likely that there are "many" who feel the opposite. The whole thing violates WP:UNDUE. For the record I find Mr Oldman to be an extraordinary actor and my library is replete with DVDs of his performances. That does not mean I would insert my enjoyment of them into WikiP articles. The OPs post as well as the header are violations of WP:NPA and make it hard to AGF. MarnetteD|Talk 04:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on Bram Stoker's Dracula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Could you please specify *exact* parts of my additions in that introduced section, where it's unsourced in your opinion? Since every bit was provided with reference link last time. Also could you please stop deleting parts of text with provided sources, if you have problems with only some bits of information.

Here is the last version of my text:

"The movie had a considerable impact on popular culture and vampire representation in media.

So, which parts exactly are unsourced?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.229.207 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/the-five-greatest-segments-from-the-simpsons-treehouse-of-horror-episodes-44459/
  2. ^ https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Dracula-la_Land
  3. ^ http://www.roguesportal.com/know-shadows-edition/
  4. ^ http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/stranger-things/271447/how-stranger-things-2-paid-tribute-to-winona-ryder-in-dracula
I wasn't involved in this, but I can tell you that per WP:SPS a wiki wouldn't be acceptable as a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this section is trivial. Just because a film, book, or tv show references this film, doesn't mean we need to include it. The sources have to show that the reference to the film was notable, not simply that it existed. The Simpsons episode would fit, because critics have long-noted the significance of the "Treehouse of Horror" episodes. The Stranger Things episode might fit the bill, too. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC) ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobite, you see, this section is called "Legacy" and it's about cultural impact this particular movie made in popular culture and media (and it made quite an impact I'll say). In order to show that something made a cultural impact you give examples of media (like books, TV shows, movies, theatre productions, etc.) which contain evidence of such impact. For example they reference scenes, designs, plot points of that movie. While I understand that some not so famous media can be debated and discussed (like some not so famous metal band doing a song or w/e), it's really strange to debate such big famous hit popculture things like Simpsons or Stranger Things or WWITS. You can't show legacy without giving examples of such legacy. And those are ones of many examples of such legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.229.177 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jacobite. I love What We Do In the Shadows, but I'm not sure the site provided really meets RS criteria; then again, it was pretty broken when it loaded on my browser at work. DonIago (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so The Simpsons fit, Stranger Things fit, but how can you exclude "What We Do in The Shadows" when not only it's one big hommage to vampire movies, but one of the main characters is directly based on this version of Dracula? Please explain.
You just said here that The Simpsons and Stranger Things both would fit the section, but then you removed those two from the article. Is this a joke?

Also the sources I gave to What We Do In The Shadows in the article (and none of the sources are broken) are the following: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/watch-jemaine-clement-and-the-funny-vampires-in-104338593572.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/movies-you-might-have-missed-taika-waititi-jemaine-clement-what-we-do-in-the-shadows-a7656181.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyWicked (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, changes to the article should be made after a consensus is reached in the discussion rather than during the discussion. DonQuixote (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ideally. However, we are discussing 3 items for hours. There are only 3 short pieces of information atm (with sources) which are supposed to be added to the article. I mean several hours already have passed since I asked my questions and provided (again) the sources. No reply. Do you honestly think that it requires so much time to see if information about a cartoon, one TV series episode and a movie can be added to the article and provide some explanation for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyWicked (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DonQuixote, sounds fair, but the consensus in discussion can be reached only if there is a discussion in the first place. And the problem here - there is no discussion right now. The Old Jacobite made remarks about The Simpsons and Stranger Things fitting. That's it, no further comments or actions. He doesn't let either me, or other people add them in the article. He doesn't explain why he doesn't let it. He doesn't explain why What We Do In the Shadows can't be added either, despite the nature of the movie and that multiple reviewers and creators themselves literally said how much they based things on the movie in the article. Even if you didn't like the source I gave for that movie, other sources already were given. So...about that discission. Where is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.229.177 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes discussions are quick and sometimes they're not. That's just the nature of online collaborations. Bring up any suggestions here, and if there's no issues raised in response (provided you give people enough time to respond), then boldly add them (provided that they're properly sourced). DonQuixote (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand this. But it's been, what, couple of days already? And the discussed subject here is pretty small imho. I mean debating such a small addition to article feels pretty slow. It doesn't even look like collaboration. These media items are all sourced. The sources I gave for The Simpsons and for Stranger Things weren't commented on here. I mean nobody said that these particular sources are wrong and gave proper detailed explanation why they were wrong. The comment was that both those itmes could fit, so clearly items themselves can't be an issue then, yet nothing concrete about the sources themselves for each item as well. My source for WWDITS was commented on here, but other new sources were provided already as replacement. Nothing was said about the new sources. You say it's better to bring up suggestions - but I already kinda did and so far didn't get any straight reply. That's the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.229.177 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here: first, the reliability of the sources being used to reference the legacy examples; two, whether these legacy examples are actually of significance. It's not enough to say that they exist, we have to prove notability. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I gave two sources for What We Do In The Shadows I'll talk about them. Both sources are major established media outlets (Yahoo and Independent). That checks reliability factor of sources to a T. As for notability - the sources not only say that What We Do In The Shadows references that movie a lot, it's directly stated there that one of the main characters in this movie is based on this version of Dracula. If one of main characters is based on something, well, that's notable. So these sources do not merely say these examples just exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyWicked (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that proves notability, which is determined not by the significance of the influence of the first film on the second, but the significance, as judged by critics, of the second films use of elements from the first. Does that make sense? It means critics have to say that it was important that Bram Stoker's Dracula influenced What We Do In The Shadows. Do these sources do that? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. My leaning is toward believing that if TPTB behind Shadows (not a source just saying "Huh, he seems a lot like the Dracula from this film") noted that one of the characters was specifically based on the portrayal of Dracula from this film, then that might merit inclusion. I'm not sure that it's necessary to go another ten yards to prove that this is somehow important, and I think I tend to be a stickler when it comes to proving the significance (I try to avoid the term "notability" in these instances to avoid confusion) of "pop culture references". As we're essentially talking about one factoid in this case, I'm not sure it's worth devoting too much energy to hashing this one out, but I'd admittedly be curious to hear from other editors on this. @DonQuixote: Do you have a take on this? DonIago (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that the current list-style of homages and parodies is a little too IMDb-triva-like. When I think of "legacy", I'm more inclined to think of things like how Bela Lugosi's Dracula influenced the portrayal of vampires in fiction (as opposed to the Varney the Vampire-like interpretations before that). That is, I would prefer sources like this rather than trivia lists or mentions like the sources above. But then, this is rather a common occurrence in fiction articles (particularly film and tv related articles). As I've said on Doctor Who episode pages, at this point I'm just happy that people are starting to cite reliable sources for these things, even if they are just trivia lists and not the full on analyses of legacies that I would prefer. DonQuixote (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Don. I think there probably is an argument that can be made that if people are choosing to use the portrayal of Dracula in this film as the basis for their own portrayals in other notable works, then it should be noted on the grounds that it helps to establish the long-term significance of this film. Provided appropriate sourcing is available, of course. DonIago (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is finally rolling. Yay! So, now the question - summarizing what Doniago and Jacobite said above, does it mean that "What We Do In The Shadows" can be added to the article (with my sources) now or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyWicked (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I correctly understood what DonQuixote and Doniago said, they all in all don't object to adding "WWDITS" to the article and don't object to those provided sources. So? I mean it'd be nice to add this move and wrap this part up at least (there are still "Simpsons" and "Stranger Things" to mull over next). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.229.186 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't object to adding" is a pretty accurate summation of my feelings at this time. I reserve the right to revisit that opinion if editors bring up additional arguments one way or another. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, how exactly many editors per this article are there? I saw at least 3 (you, Jacobite and DonQuixote). Also are all the editors supposed to unanimously agree on each and every issue or there is a democratic principle where, if majority agrees, then it's all good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by sallywicked (talk • contribs)
Hi Sally, first of all, please sign your posts, which you can do by adding four tildes (~) to the end of them. Secondly, I'm not aware of any way to see how many editors are paying attention to an article or its Talk page. Even if an editor had the page on their watchlist, that wouldn't necessarily indicate that they were paying attention...and I don't think one could filter by "active" editors in any case. When there is disagreement on an article an outcome should ideally be determined by consensus at the Talk page, but if an editor is unhappy with how that discussion is resolving then there are additional options available at dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sally, first of all, please sign your posts, which you can do by adding four tildes (~) to the end of them. Secondly, I'm not aware of any way to see how many editors are paying attention to an article or its Talk page. Even if an editor had the page on their watchlist, that wouldn't necessarily indicate that they were paying attention...and I don't think one could filter by "active" editors in any case. When there is disagreement on an article an outcome should ideally be determined by consensus at the Talk page, but if an editor is unhappy with how that discussion is resolving then there are additional options available at dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the tip, I didn't actually know how to sign my posts (didn't pay attention to this option). Ok, I'll take it then that there are 3 editors right now for this article (judging by involvement in discussion). And thanks for dispute resolution option. Looks handy. SallyWicked (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DonIago it would be really, really lovely to understand though re:WWDITS what we are waiting for now. I mean you expressed your feelings, so did DonQuixote. So, like, what's next?46.39.229.164 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of going out on a limb, I'd say if there's no objections between now and Monday, go ahead and re-add that part in. If you can flesh it out a bit as DQ suggested, that would be much better. DonIago (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since that part was re-added to article and I hope it'll stick this time, what about Stranger Things and Simpsons? SallyWicked (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you wait for a response before readding those? The Simpsons is well-referenced and the allusions to the movie are pretty obvious. I'm still not convinced about Stranger Things. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were no additional replies or comments about Simpsons and Stranger Things for days by now, so I thought there were no more objections to either of them. What issues do you have with Stranger Things part? Why are you not convinced by it? SallyWicked (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What it comes down to is Winona Ryder dances with a guy dressed like Dracula – but not even remotely like Dracula in this film, which the source admits. My response is, So what? How is this relevant or significant? It's not enough to claim a similarity, we have to show, as I have said numerous times above, that it's notable. I see no such evidence here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's break it then. It is quite relevant. Stranger Things is a popular show, that, among other things, is mightly packed with nostalgia - the show is literally built on multiple references, quotes from all kinds of famous movies and shows and games from 80s and 90s. It's the essence of the show. Now this particular episode makes a reference to this Dracula movie (also called in article as "classics") - both through the actress herself and through the scene itself (it's stated in the article). The source says that yeah, this Dracula-costume has the look based on Bela Lugosi's look but then this article also makes a point why it's a big juicy self-reference in itself. The scene happens in the 80s and prior to Dracula 1992 movie the only established Dracula look in popculture was Lugosi-like (cape, short hair, clean shaven face etc.). After Dracula 1992 movie depiction of Dracula's look broadened in pop conscious. So yeah, it's notable not only because it is a reference to this 90s vampire classic movie, but because it highlights Dracula's evolution in popculture. SallyWicked (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the show is really packed with multiple references, then for me that would tend to lessen the importance of each individual reference and strengthen the need for independent sources to call them out... DonIago (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple references to famous/iconic fantasy, sci-fi and horror media is show's schtick, so I don't think it lessens the importance of each individual reference, on the contrary if the show makes a reference to something like this, it means this thing is a notable established popculture landmark. (If you haven't seen the show I recommend to watch it, you'll understand what I mean). As for independent sources, DenofGeek is a media devoted to all kind of popculture things in fantasy and horror and sci-fi and etc. and thus qualifies as independent. SallyWicked (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the show's schtick, then it's better and more appropriate to mention it in the show's article. DonQuixote (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DonQuixote, I actually wasn't going to write an essay about the show itself in this movie's article, don't worry. I merely gave an explanation to Old Jacobite here on talk page why this reference is relevant and this was part of my explanation. SallyWicked (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I will say again that the Den of Geek source is too vague to prove Sean Astin's costume is a reference to this film. I would also argue that it does not indicate any special significance to the scene, either. A guy dressed as a vampire dances with Winona Ryder. That's all I get out of it. If this is truly significant, a better source should be found to prove it. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mignola's comics

Why the image of the cover of the comics was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyWicked (talk • contribs) 13:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While brainstorming over a couple of items is happening above, I would like to repeat the question which is so very simple. Why was the image of the cover of Mignola's comics removed? It was placed in "Merchandise" section which directly talks about those comics. Mignola himself is a renowned comics artist, not some amature artist from deviantart. So, what's the issue here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyWicked (talk • contribs) 10:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs) as removing editor. DonIago (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going back through the edit history of the merchandising section, I see only one reliable, third-party source, the Comic Book Database. But, I still see no source that proves the notability of the comic, as CBD only prove its existence. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I don't get it. My addition was adding the cover of the comic to the section. The comic that is written about in that very section: "A four-issue comic book adaptation and 100 collectible cards based on the movie were released by the Topps company with art provided by Mike Mignola and a full script provided by Roy Thomas, using dialogue derived almost entirely from the film's script". Why on Earth there needs to be some source providing "notability of the comic" if the image I added was just the cover of the comic itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by sallywicked (talk • contribs)
I believe Jacobite's point may be that whether the comic should be mentioned at all is a question as the text currently may not satisfy WP:IPCV, in that there's a lack of sourcing establishing the significance of the comic. If the comic shouldn't be mentioned, then including the cover would obviously be superfluous. My recommendation would be that you see whether you can find a source establishing that the comic garnered significant attention. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the section is called "Merchandise" and it's about all merchandise (big or small) issued in relation to this particular movie (duh) and you try to tell me that any rational editor would have suddenly an issue with official comic, based on this very movie, which is also going to get a reprint this year as I understand and which was drawn by the famous comic artist? SallyWicked (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't take a section name as gospel, or carte blanche to insert everything that may be appropriate to include under it in a broad sense. Per WP:IINFO, Wikipedia's focus should be limited to significant information, and in the case of merchandise or such, we would establish that significance by providing an independent source that establishes that the merchandise garnered some attention, as discussed at WP:IPCV. The way I like to think of it is that we need a source establishing not only that the tree fell in the woods, but that it made a sound when it fell. For those who want to discuss things like merchandising for films in more exhaustive detail, there are probably more appropriate sites available. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Bram Stoker's Dracula 2'?

There is a film called Bram Stoker's Dracula 2.[4][5] I bought it years ago as part of a cheap horror box set including Night of the Living Dead, Plague, and another film I've forgotten. I never watched Dracula 2: does anyone know of it and should it be mentioned here? 113.29.230.198 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The links you put are about a German Blu-ray release of the 2006 film Bram Stoker's Dracula's Curse. David Pro (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Stoker's actual Dracula

Surely someone had something to say, and its worth saying, that the film called "Bram Stoker's Dracula" doesn't actually follow the novel very closely. Say "closer than most" if you like, its still significantly altered. This ought to be stated so people don't make the mistake of thinking they've just watched a video rendition of the novel, because they didn't. I mean, seriously, people will assume Stoker wrote a book with Dracula mourning the loss of his dead wife, actually a tragic character, only driven to England because he believes she has been reborn there: none of this is even hinted at in Bram Stokers book, and this ought to be stated - prominently - for the record in this article (personally I don't see where he gets off calling it "Bram Stoker's" while making such huge changes. Its false advertising.) 64.222.87.157 (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would be welcome to add a section discussing variances from the novel, but such a section should include sources which discuss the differences, as a means of establishing that the differences are considered significant. As every movie that adapts a novel inevitably has differences from its source material, simply saying that a movie doesn't follow the book is essentially stating the obvious, while to state without sources that the differences are significant would be our own interpretation. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Surely the primary topic of "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is the novel that Stoker wrote and not a film made long after his death? Suggest moving the dab page to the base title per a similar arrangement at Mary Shelley's Frankenstein which was recently endorsed in a separate RM discussion. PC78 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please can a subject expert disambiguate incoming links to Bram Stoker's Dracula? I've fixed 90% of them, which were almost all for the 1992 film or its soundtrack, but the best target for the remaining links is not obvious to a layman. Thanks, Certes (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title and lede

Bram Stoker's Dracula is also known simply as Dracula. In fact, titles with possessives (writers/directors/producers) are almost always titled without the possessive at Wikipedia, so the article title should probably be changed. But either way, failing to recognise the simple title in the lede has no precedent. See The Avengers (2012 film) for an example, and also https://letterboxd.com/film/dracula-1992/, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dracula-film-by-Coppola, https://www.nme.com/news/film/francis-ford-coppola-denies-asking-male-cast-of-dracula-to-shout-abuse-at-winona-ryder-on-set-2696372, https://ew.com/article/2015/10/06/francis-ford-coppola-remembers-dracula/, and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103874/ for starters. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:47F:8F32:8F74:C028 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen it titled as Dracula. Comcast uses the full Bram Stoker's Dracula in their menu and when it airs on various cable networks. Please note that per WP:RS/IMDB the site cannot be used as a ref. If you want to run a WP:RFC that would be fine. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't get sufficient response I will will run an RFC or an RM, thanks. Obviously, plenty of sources use "Bram Stoker's Dracula", since that is the complete name, but that's quite separate to the argument I've presented above - none of which you have addressed. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:CDE5:54E1:64C9:F6A7 (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bram_Stoker%27s_Dracula_(1992_film)&oldid=965268198"