More iconic vampire?

[amadeus]

Dracula: easy to pronounce, good cereal.

 

[GinandTonic]

Not a debate. Nosferatu has a incredible presence in pop-culture considering it's legal problems, but it's mostly just the silhouette. Bela Lugosi's Dracula on the other hand, sets the template for modern vampires. Their strengths, weaknesses, the sexual element, everything. When someone writes something with vampires in it these days, the first thing they do is figure out what the differences are from the "standard" vampire, which is basically Universal Picture's Dracula.

Nosferatu is a beautiful piece of cinema, but it didn't have the impact that Dracula did. And that's nothing to be ashamed of.

Those things are all from the book and the myth. Lugosi's is clearly the more iconic but doesnt deserve the credit for the book.

 

[Zack]

Twilight.

I'm still pondering the deep, deep meaning your well thought out post clearly sent. I'm still not able to decipher its historic amounts of complexity and discussion.

 

[Ekolite]

The most iconic Vampire is Dracula. I've never even heard of this other guy.

Twilight is a fad, not an icon.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Many people have not heard of Nosferatu, and what they have heard of is the silhouette. Dracula, however, is the basis for pretty much all later vampires. So, Dracula is more iconic.


Though Dracula is a horribly written book.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Dracula cause I've heard about him more.

 

[Aegis]

And Nosferatu was pretty clearly cribbing the Dracula book and popular play, too.

This.

Nosferatu was heavily influenced by Bram Stoker's Dracula.

I would rank Anne Rice's Lestat waaaaaaay higher than Edward in the "iconic" category. Twilight is the antithesis of iconic vampires.

 

[negZero]

Nosferatu was part of the name of the movie that Count Orlok was in (guy in the second picture). Orlok is base on Dracula, therefore Dracula is the most iconic vampire with out question.

 

[sophie]

Nosferatu was part of the name of the movie that Count Orlok was in (guy in the second picture). Orlok is base on Dracula, therefore Dracula is the most iconic vampire with out question.

He's not just based on Dracula, he is Dracula...by another name. See, when they made Nosferatu, they couldn't get the rights to the book, because Stoker's family still owned them, so they got around it by changing everyone's names around.

 

[negZero]

He's not just based on Dracula, he is Dracula...by another name. See, when they made Nosferatu, they couldn't get the rights to the book, because Stoker's family still owned them, so they got around it by changing everyone's names around.

Wrong if Orlok was true copy of Dracula he would have all of his powers. Orlok can't create more vampires, dies if sunlight touches him, and is quite lacking in the shapeshifting ability.

 

[Aegis]

Wrong if Orlok was true copy of Dracula he would have all of his powers. Orlok can't create more vampires, dies if sunlight touches him, and is quite lacking in the shapeshifting ability.

I take it you've never actually read Bram Stoker's Dracula before.

 

[negZero]

I take it you've never actually read Bram Stoker's Dracula before.

I have read it but I got to remember which powers Orlok didn't have. Dracula was only able to be killed by impalement of the heart and decapitated. Orlok on the hand was killed by sunlight something merely weakens Dracula. Also to throw in powers that Orlok didn't have weather manipulation

 

[Aegis]

I have read it but I got to remember which powers Orlok didn't have. Dracula was only able to be killed by impalement of the heart and decapitated. Orlok on the hand was killed by sunlight something merely weakens Dracula. Also to throw in powers that Orlok didn't have weather manipulation

Dracula could walk around in the daylight. It didn't kill him. It didn't even injure him.

If you compare Harker's stay in Dracula's castle to Nosferatu, you can tell it's obviously the same story as scenes in the movie are identical to events in the book, like when Dracula cuts his hand on Harker's shaving razor.

As for him not displaying the same powers, the movie was filmed in 1922! I'm pretty sure the special effects & budget available at the time were insufficient to have him turning into a wolf/mist & climbing walls.

 

[Kennigit]

There's only 3 monsters kid: Blacula, Dracula, and Son of Kong.

 

[negZero]

Dracula could walk around in the daylight. It didn't kill him. It didn't even injure him. .

And this disagreeing with me how? Said Dracula merely becomes weaker not hurt, injured or sick, sun just makes so he can't use his powers at 100%.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Not a debate. Nosferatu has a incredible presence in pop-culture considering it's legal problems, but it's mostly just the silhouette. Bela Lugosi's Dracula on the other hand, sets the template for modern vampires. Their strengths, weaknesses, the sexual element, everything. When someone writes something with vampires in it these days, the first thing they do is figure out what the differences are from the "standard" vampire, which is basically Universal Picture's Dracula.

Nosferatu is a beautiful piece of cinema, but it didn't have the impact that Dracula did. And that's nothing to be ashamed of.

Need there be more said?