Ok, but Coppolas is the best Dracula adaptation!
-
TheSolarSailor — 16 years ago(May 20, 2009 03:04 AM)
Coppola took lots of various ideas from the book, but basically constructed his own story. It was more faithful than most, but certainly not as faithful as this BBC series was. Coppola did indeed go over the top, and we don't need a love story between Dracula added to the mix in an effort to fix what isn't broken. I was very impressed with the BBC version, though even it is flawed to a degree.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
-
Gary-161 — 16 years ago(August 06, 2009 05:35 AM)
Coppola's version has a reputation for being the most ridiculous adaption, especially the production design and costumes. I've yet to get past half an hour of it so I can't give a considered judgement but that moment when Dracula grabs a sword and screams "Yeeeargurgle* It is no laughing matter!" at a confused looking Keeanu Reeves, was enough to make me hit the stop button.
I did read a story - maybe apocryphal - that Coppala shut down the set one day when Hopkins and Oldman were trying to out-camp each other. I also recall a documentary on the film which depicted Oldman complaining to Coppola that he couldn't "wing" his performance. He needed guidance. I guess he didn't get it. -
Xcalat3 — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 04:08 AM)
Coppola took lots of various ideas from the book, but basically constructed his own story. It was more faithful than most, but certainly not as faithful as this BBC series was. Coppola did indeed go over the top, and we don't need a love story between Dracula added to the mix in an effort to fix what isn't broken. I was very impressed with the BBC version, though even it is flawed to a degree.
I agree with this.
Libera te tu temet ex inferis.
pro ego sum diabolus, pro ego sum nex. -
Cult_of_Kibner — 10 years ago(October 22, 2015 10:33 PM)
In fact I'd argue that Coppolas Dracula is no less faithful to the book than this film, possibly even more so.
I'd argue against that vehemently. Coppola's may or may not be the
best
adaptation, but it's definitely not the most
faithful
. It may preserve some details that the 1977 version doesn't but the entire heart of the movie is a love story that didn't even exist in the book. The '77 version is a straight up dramatization; Coppola's version is a reinterpretation. -
MinJeta — 3 months ago(December 28, 2025 02:57 AM)
Coppola's version is completely a reinterpretation, which makes it so aggravating that he insisted on calling it Bram Stoker's Dracula, claiming how faitflhful it was to the novel.
First and foremost Dracula by Bram Stoker is NOT a love story. It is a horror story, with romantic elements. Coppola turned it into a love story with horror elements.
Also Stoker's novel did not have a Vlad the Impaler backstory! Infact the novel had nothing to do with Vlad, whether you agree or not that Stoker took inspiration from there.
The 1977 version remains the truest adaptation - or at least it is as far any I have seen.
"The trouble is most people are twats or cunts. Or both." -
Chicxulub — 3 months ago(December 28, 2025 03:10 AM)
It's a shame, because the Coppola version does have some neat details that were in the novel.
But, I really despise the added love story and the lame origin story for Dracula.
Plus, that armor Gary Oldman wears looks like it's made of pasta shells.