[ SECRET POST #5769 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5789 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 69 secrets from Secret Submission Post #826.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/mUEVFd7.png

[(Anonymous)]

The thing of it is, Coppola's Dracula isn't a traditional adaptation. It's a period adaptation, absolutely, but it also took huge liberties with the plot (the Mina reincarnation romance, to name the big one). It was the fresh new interpretation of its day. I would LOVE an actual true adaptation of the novel, but this ... wasn't it.

It was, however, an absolutely gorgeous movie on a visual level, absolutely. The costuming and cinematography are stunning.

[(Anonymous)]

It's arguably the most traditional adaptation of Dracula we've got, certainly the most traditional Hollywood adaptation.

[(Anonymous)]

Really? I didn't know that

[(Anonymous)]

/shrug I'm not 100% positive, but I'm struggling to come up with a more traditional adaptation example. There's been plenty of vampire media, and even Dracula. But they usually try to put a fresh twist on Stoker's novel.

[(Anonymous)]

It's more traditional than the 1931 one?

[(Anonymous)]

It's been a while since I saw that version, but... IIRC that version gives Renfield a much more prominent role. Instead of Jonathan Harker being the one to visit Dracula's castle, etc. etc., it's Renfield.

[(Anonymous)]

Huh, you're right, I completely forgot about that. I guess I need to rewatch it too!

[(Anonymous)]

+1000

It's a fine movie, but especially with Dracula Daily going on, I've been dying for a movie that actually tells the story, especially when it comes to the Harkers.

[(Anonymous)]

Claes Bang is my new favorite Dracula in the latest series adaptation.

[(Anonymous)]

It's a beautiful movie, for sure. I don't really have a favorite Dracula adaptation, because few of them try to be book accurate, and so many are greats in their own ways. Lugosi, Lee, Langella, Jordan, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't care much for the movie, mostly because the cast just did not work for me. But most of the costumes and sets were attractive.

[(Anonymous)]

I love this movie!!

[greghousesgf]

I never understood why Dracula had hair that looked like a butt

[(Anonymous)]

It's iconic! And maybe people back then would've thought it was cool.

[greghousesgf]

I was around back then and I just thought why does he have butt hair

[(Anonymous)]

I think they meant "back then" as in the end of the 19th century.

But, maybe you're secretly an immortal vampire and that's what you mean to...

- nayrt